- (1.) Vide this common judgment, I intend disposing of four cases i.e. C. W. P. No. 5538 of 1994, C. W. P. No. 5763 of 1994, C. W. P. No. 7571 of 1994 and C. W. P. No. 7587 of 1994 as issues involved in all these four cases are similar and inter-connected. For the sake of convenience, facts are being taken from C. W. P. No. 5538 of 1994 Sohan Lal and others vs. State of Haryana and others.
(2.) Land measuring 447 kanals 08 marlas of Chiria @ Guranditta and Devi Lal son of Chiria (hereinafter referred to as 'the land owners') was declared surplus and after vesting of the same in the State, was allotted to the ejected tenants and the remaining surplus area was allotted in favour of persons falling under 'F' Category. This was done through the order dated 10.07.1984 passed by Sub Divisional Magistrate (Civil)-cum-Allotment Authority, Sirsa (Annexure P-1).
(3.) The petitioners, claiming themselves to be tenants on the permissible area of the land owners, challenged the order dated 10.07.1984 (Annexure P-1) by filing an appeal under Section 18 of the Haryana Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1972 (in short the Act). The main grouse raised by them was that the order under appeal had been passed without any notice to them and they being in cultivating possession of the land in dispute since 1968 as tenants, had a prior right of allotment of the land in question. The Collector, Sirsa, vide his order dated 25.06.1985 (Annexure P-2), dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioners on the ground that before the order dated 10.07.1984 (Annexure P-1) was passed, the prescribed Authority had issued notices as required in law. The proclamation in the village had also been got effected and thus, it was wrong on the part of the petitioners to allege that the order dated 10.07.1984 (Annexure P-1) was bad in law for want of proper notice and proclamation. On merits, the petitioners' case was rejected as the petitioners did not produce any proof, whatsoever, to show that they were in cultivating possession of the land in question since 1968, as averred by them. Aggrieved by the order dated 25.06.1985 (Annexure P- 2) passed by the Collector, Sirsa, the petitioners, through an appeal, challenged the same before the Commissioner, Hisar Division, who also returned the finding that there was no violation of principles of natural justice, as averred by the petitioners as notices had been duly issued as required and proclamation had also been carried out in the village. Further, since the petitioners had not furnished any proof of being in possession of the land in question, the Commissioner, Hisar Division, through his order dated 24.02.1994 (Annexure P-3), dismissed the revision petitions filed by the petitioners. Still aggrieved, the petitioners then approached the Financial Commissioner, but before him also, they did not produce any record to show that they had been in possession of the land in question since 1968, as averred by them. The Financial Commissioner also concurred with the findings arrived at by the Collector and the Commissioner to hold that there was no violation of principles of natural justice, as was being sought to be projected by the petitioners. Resultantly, their petition was dismissed vide order dated 23.03.1994 (Annexure P-4), leading to the filing of the present writ petition before this Court. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and with their able assistance, have gone through the record.;