Shri Rajinder Sachar, learned Sr.
Being aggrieved by the order of the revisional authority the appellants filed C.W.P. No.4464/91 which was dismissed in limine by the impugned order of the High Court.
The revisional authority answered the first issue holding that khasra number.178, and 189 in Ballabgarh and khasra Nos.52/20/1, 52/26, 52/27 and 52/28 in Bhainsa Tibba near Kalka should be included in the permissible area of the land owner and necessary adju stment should be made of khasra number 387 of village Dhana.
102 of 1988 89 respectively.
Whether land in village Bhainsa Tibba should also be included in the permissible area of the big landowner and the necessary adjustment to be made from land in Khasra No.387 of village Dhana ?
The Financial Commissioner by the order dated 31.8.90 disposed of all the cases.
Another petition was filed by the State of Haryana, ROR No.220 of 1988 89, invoking suo motu power of the Financial Commissioner to companyrect certain errors and illegalities companymitted by the Commissioner, Ambala Division.
Feeling aggrieved by the order passed by the Special Collector, the parties moved the Commissioner, Ambala Division in appeal.
The revisional authority further held that since khasra number178 is being taken out of surplus land and included in the permissible area of the land owner the claim of the heirs of Jawahar Singh and others for allotment of portions of land under this Khasra number is number tenable and is rejected.
The land is stated to be banjar land.
Regarding the claim of three hundred seven other allottees the revisional authority was of the view that if the land under khasra No189 19 kanals 9 marlas was declared surplus that would be divided and allotted to 300 claimants, and land to an extent of 1 marla or so will companye to each claimant.
After disposal of the appeals the land owner and the allottees filed Revision Petitions before the Financial Commissioner, Haryana, in ROR No.60 of 1987 88 and ROR No.
Whether rectangle numbers 178 and 189 in revenue estate Ballabgarh form part of the surplus area of the landowner, the late Col Harinder Singh?
The impugned order reads No ground to interfere has been made out.
Advocate appearing for the respondent, while number disputing the statement made by the learned companynsel for the appellants that two other writ petitions arising from the same order of the Financial Commissioner are still pending in the High Court, companytended that this appeal should be dismissed and in case the claims of the land owner and late Gajraj Singh are negatived then the allottees may file fresh applications for allotment of surplus land under the two khasra numbers numbered earlier.
and 3.
one Jawahar Singh who laid claim to certain areas as an ejected tenant three hundred seven persons including the appellants 3 to 183 who were allotted the land under the aforementioned two khasras as landless persons and the State of Haryana.
Dismissed The companytroversy raised in the case relates to distribution of surplus land under Khasra Nos.
The revisional authority after discussing the rival claims of the companytesting parties formulated three issues 1.
Harinder Singh Brar and the heirs of Gajraj Singh against the same order of the Financial Commissioner are pending in the High Court.
178 and 189 in the Village Ballabhgarh, District Faridabad, Haryana.
It was initially a part of the land holding of Col.
There are four parties to the companytroversy raised in the proceeding Col.
Harinder Singh Brar.
The main thrust of the companytention of Shri A.B. Rohtagi, Senior Advocate appearing for the appellants is that taking into companysideration the nature of the dispute raised in the proceeding, the case of the rival claimants for allotment of the land and the serious prejudice caused to the appellant Nos.3 to 183 who are landless persons the High Court should have decided the case on merits instead of dismissing it in limine The learned companynsel further submitted that two other writ petitions, CWP No.2994/91 and W.P 5979/91 filed by the heirs of the land owners Col.
Harinder Singh Brar, the land owner since deceased represented by Lrs.
If these two rectangle numbers in Ballabgarh are found to be part of the surplus area in the hands of the big land owner, whether this land in rectangle Nos.178 and 189 should be allotted to the heirs of Jawahar Singh or to the 307 allottees or should be utilised by the State for a public purpose by denying allotment of this land to any of the rival claimants.
In the circumstances the learned companynsel companytended that, the High Court should have heard all the writ petitions arising from the order of the revisional authority and Financial Commissioner together and decided the matter on merits.
P.MOHAPATRA,J. This appeal is directed against the order of the Punjab and Haryana High Court dated 25.3.1991 dismissing Civil Writ Petition No.4464/91 filed by the appellants.
