- (1.) THE petitioner has challenged the order dated April 30, 1993 passed by the Financial Commissioner, Haryana, whereby the revision petition filed by him was dismissed and the orders of the Prescribed Authority, Collector, Sirsa and the Commissioner, Hisar Division, Hisar were upheld, in this petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India.
(2.) SOM Parkash (since deceased) submitted Declaration Form under Section 9 of the Haryana Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1972 (for short, the Act ). The Prescribed Authority, Sirsa, vide order dated June 19, 1982, accepted the declaration and found that the landowner did not hold land in excess of the prescribed limit. The State did not challenge the order of the Prescribed Authority. One Comrade Mahipat, a Social Worker, filed a complaint to the Collector, Sirsa stating that the landowner had wrongly been given the benefit of one Unit of area. The Collector set aside the order of the prescribed authority vide his order dated September 4, 1984 and remitted the case back to the Prescribed Authority for a fresh decision. The Prescribed Authority found that the landowner had sold 151 Kanals and 8 Marlas of land on April 10, 1970, for Rs. 28,000/- and transferred its possession to the vendees on the same day. The vendees were not the relations of the landowner. However, he found that this land could not be excluded from the holdings of the landowner for computing his total land holdings. He directed the landowner to submit a list of field numbers, which he wanted to be declared as surplus. The landowner unsuccessfully challenged the order of the Prescribed Authority in appeal before the Collector and in revision petition before the Commissioner, Hisar Division, Hisar. The second revision before the Financial Commissioner, Haryana was registered as R. O. R. No. 93 of 1989-90. The Financial Commissioner accepted the revision petition vide his order dated August 21,1990 observing thus: "a point has been made by the State that since now the matter is before Financial Commissioner, he can exercise his suo moto powers to order a revision of the order of the Prescribed Authority of 19. 6. 1982. 1 think, this is incorrect. No case has been made out by the State. No revision has been brought by the State. The sale was made on 10. 4. 72 i. e. before the commencement of Haryana Ceiling on Land holdings Act and as per Jaswant Kaur's case (1977 P. L. J 230), the sale, if bona fide, will have to exempt. The sale was for consideration and not to the relations. No argument has been advanced on behalf of State that it was not bona fide. "
(3.) JIT Singh and Kaur Singh challenged the order of the Financial Commissioner, Haryana in this Court through Civil Writ Petition No. 5261 of 1991 and the same was disposed of by a Division Bench, of this Court on July 29,1991, observing thus: "the primary argument advanced before us is that the petitioner was not heard and that he was a necessary party before the Financial Commissioner. The counsel for respondent No. 5 has submitted before us that the petitioner may be ordered to be heard by the Financial by the Financial Commissioner. We accordingly set aside the impugned order and direct the Financial Commissioner (Revenue) to pass a fresh order in accordance with law after granting an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners. The parties through their counsel are directed to appear before the Financial Commissioner (Revenue) on 13. 8. 1991. ";