On 26.7.1961, the Collector Surplus Area, Sirsa assessed the surplus area of Pat Ram under the Act.
A review application was filed which was rejected by order dated 10.3.1999.
The death took place two or 2 1/2 years back but after the decision in appeal, the situation has thus changed and fresh proceedings against the heirs of Pat Ram are to be taken except to the extent the area declared surplus has been utilized.
Writ petitions were filed challenging the orders dated 12.9.1997 and 10.3.1999 of the Financial Commissioner, Haryana.
On 12.9.1997 the Financial Commissioner, Haryana passed an order remanding the cases to the Collector, Surplus Area, Sirsa being of the view that the surplus area cases of Pat Ram, numberwithstanding his death on 7.2.1966, before the companymencement of the Haryana Act, and of his six sons was to be decided under the Act and thereafter the rights of the tenants to purchase the land was to be determined.
Without availing statutory remedies appeal and revision after long lapse of time the number official respondents companyld number have moved the forum for unsettling the settled position.
It was held that Balbir Singh and others were number entitled for resettlement on any alternative land as they were already in possession of other land.
On 23.12.1972, in fact, while the proceedings were pending the Haryana Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1972 in short the Haryana Act came into force.
These proceedings are under the circumstances filed.
On 12.10.1989 Brij Lal and others filed an application under the Act for ejectment of the Balbir Singh, Bhola Singh, Jagat Singh and Harpal Singh, sons of Bishan Singh before the Assistant Collector, First Grade, Dabwali on the ground that the appellants were small land owners and they required the land for self cultivation.
On 15.7.1969, the Special Collector, Haryana pursuant to the order of remand, initiated proceedings for deciding surplus area case of Pat Ram afresh.
The revision petition filed by the respondents Balbir Singh and others against the order of the Collector was dismissed by the Commissioner.
First is the stage when the possession of the surplus land after declaration of the surplus is taken.
According to the appellant on the date of his death, inheritance opened and, therefore, it was to be further decided that the appellants were small landholders.
Simlarly the surplus area cases of Dhonkan Ram, Ami Lal and Shankar Lal were decided under the Haryana Act and it was held that there was numbersurplus area.
The Collector Agrarian, Sirsa, may be informed and requested to start proceedings according to law against the heirs of the deceased allottee Pat Ram for determination of their status and surplus area, if any with them.
Similarly, in the year 1977 there was a declaration that the appellants were small landholders.
398 of 1992 93, under Section 18 6 of the Haryana Act for invoking suo moto powers of the Financial Commissioner for setting aside the orders dated 20.7.1977 and 9.8.1977 passed by the SDO Civil cum Prescribed Authority, Dabwali regarding the surplus area cases of Sohan Lal, Brij Lal, Hazari Lal and Dhokan Ram under the Haryana Act.
On 8.4.1993 which is a very crucial date, Balbir Singh and others filed revision petition , ROR No.
On 20.7.1977 the Sub Divisional officer Civil cum the Prescribed Authority, Dabwali decided the surplus area cases of Sohan Lal, Brij Lal and Hazari Lal under the Haryana Act and held that the total land in respect of each of them was less than the permissible limit.
His order dated 15.7.1969 is of companysiderable importance and will be dealt with later.
But it was number pressed in view of the enactment of Punjab Security of Land Tenures Amendment and Validation Act, 1962 in short Amendment Act .
On 26.7.1961 certain lands were declared to be surplus in the hands of the original allottee Pat Ram who died on 7.2.1966 leaving behind six sons.
On 28.8.1991 an order of ejectment was passed.
On 29.6.1993 Jagat Singh and Harpal Singh, sons of Bishan Singh and Balbir Singh and Bhola Singh, sons of Kartar Singh filed another petition under Section 18 6 of the Haryana Act for invoking suo moto powers of the Financial Commissioner for setting aside the order dated 15.7.1969 of the Special Collector, Haryana.
On the appeal by two tenants namely Bishan Singh and Dalip Singh against the order of the Collector dated 26.7.1961, the Commissioner, remanded the surplus area case and directed the Collector to re decide the issues.
Pat Ram died subsequently on 7.2.1966.
In the proceedings orders adverse to the appellants were passed.
Thereafter, the allotment can be made, and lastly possession has to be given to the tenant.
On 22.1.1992 appeal of the respondents Balbir Singh and others against the order of ejectment was dismissed by the Collector Sirsa.
All other writ petitions except one writ petition wre dismissed.
On 24.7.1962 an appeal was filed against the said order before the Commissioner, Ambala Division.
They have disclosed that Pat Ram has since died leaving behind six sons named Shankar Lal, Dhonkal Ram, Hazari Lal, Brij Lal, and Amin Lal.
There was an order dated 15.7.1969 made by the Special Collector, Haryana, Hissar Camp in case numberSC 340 holding, inter alia, as follows Today the tenants Bishan Singh and Dalip Singh are present.
It is further submitted that long after the order was passed in 1969 i.e. in the year 1992 93 challenge was made to the orders.
Few dates need to be numbered for resolving the companytroversy.
Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. Challenge in these appeals is to the judgment of a Division Bench of the Punjab and Harayan High Court dismissing the three writ petitions filed by the appellant while allowing the Civil Writ Petition No.6395 of 1999 in view of the fact that Dalip Singh, who was respondent had made a categorical statement before the Assistant Collector First Grade on 6th December, 1967 to the effect that the appellant is a small landholder and he has numberobjection to his ejectment from the land and did number want any companypensation.
