- (1.) All the writ petitions relate to the property that once belonged to the estate of Colonel Raja Shri Harinder Singh by an order of the Collector, Chandigarh dated 25.06.1962 to an extent of 1324.9 ordinary acres equivalent to 747.13 standard acres had been declared as surplus. Of various items of properties about which dispute existed as regards the surplus, property in Khasra Nos.178 and 189 in Ballabhgarh that were classified as banjar kadim and gair mumkin respectively were sought to be excluded, since they did not come within the definition of land for the purpose of total computation of holding. In respect of this property, Jawahar Singh son of late Shri Gangal was the ejected tenant of Bhoodat son of Shri Notan Dass of Ballabhgarh and he had been delivered possession of the property treated as surplus in the hands of the Raja. When a decision was taken holding the two items of properties as not falling within the surplus pool and Jawahar Singh had been ordered to be ejected from the property on 22.07.1977, the property taken from the hands of the tenant were an extent of 12 kanals 4 marlas of land in Khasra No.178 and 19 kanals 9 marlas from Khasra No.189 measuring in all 31 kanals 13 marlas. Jawahar Singh, the resettled tenant that was ordered to be ejected died on 24.07.1983. His legal heirs claimed that the proeprty which had been originally excluded came to be brought outside the permissible area of the Raja as per his declaration and therefore, the same must be put back in the hands of the legal representatives of Jawahar Singh. Further dimension to the problem was that several persons had got into this property claiming themselves to be either tenants or occupants and they sought their claim to the property. The matter culminated in the order passed by the Financial Commissioner by his order dated 31.08.1990 holding that the allotment to Jawahar Singh could not have been valid since in the first place the properties themselves could not have been declared as surplus. An ejected tenant could not have been handed over possession properties which were not cultivable. As regards the claims of the various persons who contended that the property had been in their possession, the Financial Commissioner held that the jamabandi for the year 1986-87 did not show them to be in possession. However, it was observed that they were all landless persons and since the scheme of the land reform legislation was to leave the lands either with the tiller or the cultivator, such allotment could be possible only to persons who were actually tilling the land. Since there was no evidence that several persons who were claimants in occupation were tillers of the land, it would not be possible to recognize their possession as well.
(2.) This order came to be challenged in C.W.P. No.5878 and 5880 of 2005 at the instance of the representatives of the deceased Jawahar Singh. The contention in the writ petitions has been that if the land owner had contended that he did not retain the properties in Khasra Nos.178 and 189 within his permissible area, he cannot later contend that the property could not have been allotted to the ejected tenant. They pointed out to the fact that although Raja had claimed that he had two properties included within his reserved area, he had later submitted before the Appellate Authorities that the said two properties were not to be included within his reserved area. Whatever was the manner of categorization of the land, the Raja had forfeited his claim to the properties by submissions before the Financial Commissioner in the year 1987 that he made no claims with reference to the two khasra numbers. The petitioners would make a pointed reference to admission made by the land owner before the prescribed authority himself which was recorded in the order of the Special Collector, Haryana on 07.06.1979 in the following words:- "......The land owner has requested that in place of Rect. No.178 and 189 which had been acquired by the Government equal area may be given from Khasra No.387 of village Ballabhgarh....." I must immediately note that originally Raja's contention foresaking his claim seems to be on a premise that the property had already been acquired by the Government.
(3.) The writ petition in C.W.P. No.4464 of 1991 was at the instance of several persons who claimed to be allottees in respect of the property in their capacity as landless persons. They were stifled by the order of the Financial Commissioner in so far as their own claims to the property had been rejected by not taking note of the fact that they had actually been occupying the property. Their claim to the allotment was under category 'G" under Haryana Allotment Scheme of 1976. The petitioners would make a virtue of the fact that the property had been shown in the revenue records as vesting in state as in self-occupation and in as much as the property was non-agricultural, the allotment of the same to the persons claiming as tenants would not be proper and that it would be better that it could be allotted under the 20-point programme for residential purpose to landless persons.;