Paramjeet Singh, J. - (1.) THE instant writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated 14.09.1993 (Annexure P -4) passed by the Financial Commissioner, Haryana who by suo -motu exercising its power has set aside the order dated 13.10.1982. Brief facts of the case are that Telu Ram son of Sheo Nath father of the petitioner was owner of 67 Standard acres 6 -1/4 units of land situated in village Danaoda Kalan. Out of the said land 2/3rd share was purchased by the petitioners vide sale deed dated 07.11.1956 and mutation in this regard was sanctioned in their favour on 26.09.1957, meaning thereby Telu Ram father of the petitioner remained owner of 1/3rd land out of the total land in question. The Collector Agrarian, Narwana vide order dated 20.02.1962 declared 37 Standard acres and 6 -1/4 units as surplus in the hands of Telu Ram father of the petitioner, however, the said land was not utilized till the coming into force of the Haryana Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1972, (for short the Act) and remained to continue in possession of Telu Ram and thereafter petitioners. However, the respondent State made some paper transaction showing the land to be allotted to the eligible persons on 08.11.1968 and re -allotted the same land on 31.08.1976 and 28.09.1976. The possession is shown to have been delivered to the allottees on 28.04.1977, 29.09.1977, 03.10.1977 and 08.09.1980. It is the case of the petitioners that in fact this land was never utilized and the name of Telu Ram, now deceased, continued to exist in the revenue record. There is no entry with regard to change of possession from the petitioner and prior to them the possession of Telu Ram continued over the land. On coming to know regarding the declaration of surplus area in the hands of Telu Ram, petitioners moved an application before the Prescribed Authority claiming that 2/3rd out of the total of 675 Kanals 4 marlas of land has been sold to them vide sale deed No. 1002 dated 07.11.1956 and mutation has already been sanctioned in this regard in favour of the petitioners on 26.09.1957. The order declaring the surplus land has been passed without hearing and without impleading the petitioners as a party although land was purchased by them much earlier. It is further submitted that in pursuance to the application the matter was reconsidered by the Prescribed Authority and the Collector vide order dated 13.10.1982 (Annexure P -3) declared that the petitioners have become owner of the land vide sale deed dated 07.11.1956 (mentioned as 01.11.1956 in the order) and the land is still unutilized. Since the land was sold to the petitioners by the original land owner prior to 30.07.1958, it does not vest in the Government under Section 12(3) of the Act. Therefore the same cannot be utilized and the land was ordered to be released and application of the petitioners was accepted. That order became final and was never challenged but all of a sudden, in the year 1987 -88 the Financial Commissioner invoking suo -motu powers under Section 18(6) of the Act reopened the case on the ground of illegality and perversity of the order dated 13.10.1982. Thereafter the order dated 13.10.1982 was set aside vide impugned order dated 14.69.1993. Hence this petition.
(2.) UPON notice, respondents filed written statement denying averments in the petition. It is one of the objection that the land of the big land owner was declared surplus on 20.02.1962. Later on same was allotted on 08.11.1968 by the State to various persons and possession of the land was taken much earlier. After a long gap of 20 years petitioners cannot claim that original order was wrong. It was also averred in the written statement that the transactions carried out by the State are legal and valid. The land was allotted to various allottees on 08.11.1968 before the enforcement of the Act i.e. prior to 24.01.1971 and possession had already been taken. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and carefully perused the records.
(3.) SH . Bhoop Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners has vehemently contended that the petitioners purchased the land in question on 07.11.1956 and have remained in possession of the land in question throughout as owners. Thus, in view of the Full Bench judgment of this Court in Ranjit Ram v. Financial Commissioner, Revenue, Punjab and others, : 1981 PLJ 259, the petitioners are entitled to get released the land in question from surplus pool. The learned counsel has contended that impugned order passed by the Financial Commissioner is without jurisdiction and the same has been passed without availing the remedy of appeal. The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the land was sold by Telu Ram in favour of the petitioners prior to the cut of date 30.07.1958, as such the same does not vest in the Government. Further, reliance was placed upon the Full Bench decision of this Court in Jaswant Kaur v. State of Haryana, : 1977 PLJ 230 wherein it has been held that the transfers of land in excess of permissible area under the Punjab Law or Pepsu Law are protected if the transfers are made prior to 30.07.1958. It is further contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that exercise of suo -motu power under Section 18(6) of the Act is without jurisdiction and is not within the reasonable time.;