Mukhtiar Singh v. The Financial Commissioner, Haryana (DB-II), Chandigarh & Ors.

PRESENT: Mr. Sandeep Singh, Advocate for the appellant. NIRMALJIT KAUR, J. Brief facts of the case are that the surplus area case of Kanwal Preet Singh son of Avtar Singh was decided on 31-12-1960 by the Special Collector, Punjab. Consequent upon the consolidation proceedings which took place in the village, a revised Form F was prepared on 02-09-1965. Vide order 02.11.1981, Prescribed Authority, Panipat exempted the land from surplus pool. Against the order dated 02-11-1981, State invoked the power under Section 18(6) of the Haryana Ceiling on Land Holding Act to get the orders of the Prescribed Authority, Panipat quashed. Vide orders dated 13-01-1992, Financial Commissioner, Haryana quashed the orders dated 02-11-1981 and held that the area declared surplus by Collector on 02-09-1965 in the property of Kanwal Preet Singh measuring 16 standard acres 10 ¾ units vests in the State under Section 12 of the Haryana Ceiling on Land Holding Act. The prescribed Authority was directed to take possession of the land and put it to use the scheme of utilization. Mukhtiar Singh who was transferee of land from big land owner, preferred an application before the L.P.A. No.429 of 2009 -2- Special Collector on 01-09-2006. The land of the appellant was not totally exempted and only the Form F was prepared in accordance with the original order dated 31-12-1960. The respondents filed appeal before the Commissioner, Rohtak which was allowed vide order dated 14-12-2006. The revision petition filed by the appellant before the Financial Commissioner, Haryana was dismissed. The appellant further filed writ petition before this Court which was dismissed vide order dated 21-04-2009. Hence, the present Letters Patent Appeal. The appellant has challenged the order of learned Single Judge on the ground that the learned Single Judge has failed to appreciate that the order of Financial Commissioner, Haryana dated 13-01-1992 is limited to the extent of refusing exemptions while under Section 19 of the new Act and the Prescribed Authority is fully competent to rectify the order of Special Collector dated 31-12-1960 and the order of C.R.O., dated 02-09-1965, if the same are found to be mathematically wrong. The litigation which is said to have attained finality vide order dated 13-01-1992 (Annexure P-6) was related to exemptions only. The appellant is only aggrieved with the order of Special Collector vide order dated 29-05-2006 increased the surplus area from 170K-8M to 180K-15M which includes the substantial portion of the present land holding available with the appellant. After hearing learned counsel for the appellant, we find no ground to interfere with the well reasoned judgment of the learned Single Judge. One of the grounds on which the writ petition was dismissed was that no explanation was offered by the appellant to explain the delay of 14 years from the date when exemption sought by him was denied and 28 L.P.A. No.429 of 2009 -3- years of delay to seek interference in the preparation of Form F, which was prepared in the year 1965. The appellant before us, has once again, failed to explain the said delay. Further, it is a fact that the litigation had attained finality vide order dated 13-01-1992. The Financial Commissioner vide order dated 13-01-1992 quashed the order dated 02-11-1981, vide which the prescribed authority, Panipat had exempted the land from surplus pool. Once an order, quashing the exemption, has attained finality, the same cannot be reopened. He preferred an application before Special Collector, Haryana only on 01-09-2006. There is no explanation for the delay. However, an effort was made to justify the delay by submitting that he was aggrieved only when the Special Collector increased the surplus area vide order dated 29-05-2006. The authorities, however, considered his application and found that there was no change in the fresh Form F and there was no increase in the surplus area. The Commissioner, Rohtak Division dated 14-12-2006 went into the question as to whether there was any change in the surplus area or whether there was any clerical error or not in the Form F and recorded the following findings :- “ A close loom over revised Form F issued by the Special Collector during 2006 would further reveal that the total surplus same i.e. 16 standard acres 10 ¾ units meaning thereby that no less area numbers after consolidation proceedings. In fact, since the Special Collector has allowed recasting of Form F, it has consequently resulted into changing of both permissible area and surplus area and resultantly the total area now chosen under surplus pool comes to 188 kanals 15 marlas which is again equal to 16 standard acres 10 ¾ units. When the total area is standard acres reported by the C.R.O. u/s 24A(2) is tallying exactly with surplus L.P.A. No.429 of 2009 -4- area originally declared in 1960 and now declared by Special Collector., it means that no surplus area originally declared in 1960 and now declared by Special Collector, it means that no surplus area had been left out by the C.R.O., while carving out separate Kurras of permissible area and surplus area but because different field numbers have different valuation on the basis of being `Barani' or having different intensity of irrigation, it is but natural that the total area would vary when converted into ordinary acres. In fact, there has been total confusion in this respect while issuing impugned order. The limited clerical mistake pointed out by the respondent, if any, could have been got rectified by procuring detailed report from Naib Tehsildar, Agrarian very easily. A report accordingly has been obtained from the office of Naib Tehsildar, Agrarian, Panipat which has been placed on the record as per which there is no difference in the area declared surplus in 1960 and thereafter separated under Section 24A(2) of the old Act in 1965. Otherwise also, the original land owner is no more in the picture and in fact vendees are trying finality long back with the passage of time and for which the vendees are not competent to get case reopened or select permissible area.” Thus, it is clear from the above that there is no change in the surplus area. Moreover, he cannot reopen the issue of surplus land which has become final during the life time of the original landlord. In view of the above, we find no merit in the appeal and the same is, accordingly, dismissed. (NIRMALJIT KAUR) JUDGE (ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA) JUDGE May 22, 2009 gurpreet Whether to be referred to the Reporter : Yes / No