- (1.) THE instant revision petition has been filed under Section 18(6) of Haryana Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1972, challenging the order dated 16.3.2006 passed by Ld. Commissioner, Rohtak Division, Rohtak said order dated 20.5.2003 passed by Collector, Karnal.
(2.) BRIEF facts of the case, as born out from the petition, are that Takan Dass S/o Sh. Milkhi Ram was a big landowner, some of his land was declared surplus under the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953, which as per the petitioner, included 83 kanals 15 marlas in possession of Sh. Amar Nath, father of the petitioner. The petitioner's father applied for purchasing this land u/s 18 of Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953 and during pendency of this application, a compromise was reached between the landowner Takan Dass and Amar Singh and Rs. 16,775/- were paid by petitioner's father to the landowner for retaining possession of land measuring 67 kanals 2 marlas. Assistant Collector, Ist Grade, Karnal/Prescribed authority allowed purchase of only 39 kanals 4 marlas of land to the father of the petitioner. However, petitioner asserts that he remained in possession of entire 83 kanals 15 marlas of land. Further, 41 kanals 11 marlas of land had been allotted to the father of petitioner in 1978 and the petitioner had deposited its price and interest thereon on 1.1.98. Ram Kishan, respondent No. 3, purchased land measuring 61 kanals 11 marlas from legal representatives of big landowner, which included land measuring 31 kanals 11 marlas out of 44 kanals 11 marlas allotted to the father of the petitioner. On 22.8.2001, the petitioner got a warrant of possession qua this 31 kanals 11 marlas land. The warrant was challenged in appeal by Ram Kishan, respondent No. 3, in the court of Collector, Karnal which was dismissed on 18.10.2001. In revision, filed by Ram Kishan, Ld. Commissioner, Rohtak Division, Rohtak remanded the case back to Collector, Karnal vide order dated 20.9.2002. Upon this Collector, Karnal, vide its order dated 20.5.2003 held that land in question was not under cultivation of present petitioner and it was not a tenant permissible area, the original landowner had died in 1967, father of petitioner had died in 1977, the allotment was made in 1978 and the same cannot be allowed to be executed after a lapse of 20 years in the execution proceedings. It was also noted that the petitioner's father came into possession of land in 1955 so he was not old tenant. The appeal filed by Ram Kishan against the order dated 22.8.2001 was accepted and the order issuing warrant of possession was set aside. The revision petition filed by the petitioner herein was dismissed by Ld. Commissioner, Rohtak Division, Rohtak vide order dated 16.3.2006. This order has been challenged on the grounds inter alia that petitioner was allotted the land in question, being statutory tenant, that the executing court cannot go behind the decree, that the petitioner had deposited entire price of the land and interest thereon, with permission of allotment authority, that the land declared surplus had already vested in State, that the transfers, in 1975, were not bona fide, cannot be exempted, that the order of Prescribed Authority allotting land to petitioner can not be reviewed as it has attained finality and that the impugned orders are without jurisdiction.
(3.) WE have heard the arguments of learned Counsel for the petitioner wherein the points of the petition have been reiterated. We have perused the impugned orders also. After considering all aspects of the case, we are of firm view that all the contentions of the petitioner herein have been rejected in the impugned orders alter a thorough consideration. The findings of Ld. Collector, Karnal, recorded in the impugned order dated 20.5.2003 and upheld by Ld. Commissioner, Rohtak Division, Rohtak vide order dated 16.3.2006 make the things crystal clear. The petitioner's father has not been found to be an old tenant on the cut-off date in 1953 and his tenancy is from 1955 onwards. Once he is not found tenant, allotment of surplus land to him as tenant of 'A' or 'B' category is illegal and the order of allotment is non-existence in the eyes of law. Moreover, on account of purchase of about 2 hectare land by the petitioner's father, he is not entitled to allotment even in any other category under the Haryana Utilization of Surplus Land Scheme, 1976. Furthermore, non-depositing of price of the allotted land for long time makes the even otherwise illegal allotment order as infructuous. Depositing of the amount after 20 years, is against rules and does not confer any rights, whatsoever. The petitioner has also conveniently omitted any reference to order dated 5.3.1981 of Prescribed Authority, Karnal u/s of Haryana Ceiling on Land Holding Act, 1972 which has exempted the area from vesting in State on account of bona-fide transfer and death of original landowner in 1967. In light of the above discussion of the facts and law of the case, we don't find any merit in this revision petition and the same is dismissed in limine. Petition dismissed.;