The Assistant Collector and the Collector gave the answer in the affirmative whereas the Commissioner and the Financial Commissioner came to the companyclusion that the area in possession of the appellant was number utilised.
Kishan Dutt was permitted to retain the permissible area reserved by him under the Act.
Madan Mohan along with his sisters filed appeal before the Collector, Sirsa against the order of the Assistant Collector.
Both the applications came for companysideration beforethe Assistant Collector, 1st Grade, Sirsa, who by his order dated June 18,1977 rejected the application of Madan Mohan and allowed the applicationof Mala Singh for the purchase of the land.
3 The area declared surplus or tenants permissible area under the Punjab Law and the area declared surplus under the Pepsu Law, which has number so far vested in the State Government, shall be deemed to have vested in the State Government with effect from the appointed day and the area which may be so declared in pending proceedings to be decided under the Punjab Law or Pepsu Law shall be deemed to have vested in the State Government with effect from the date of such declaration.
This appeal by Mala Singh by way of special leave is against the order of Financial Commissioner as upheld by the High Court.
Mala Singh filed an application on June 24, 1972, under Section 18 of the Act for the purchase of the land under his possession as a tenant.
Mala Singh was shown in the revenue records as a tenant in cultivating possession of the land.
Sections 12 3 , 33 1 and 33 2 i of the Haryana Act which are relevant are as under Vesting of surplus area.
The Financial Commissioner accepted the revision petitions on the following reasoning It is obvious that an application for the purchase of the land was made during the lifetime of the original landowner.
Hence, the appeals filed by the appellants are hereby dismissed.
Madan Mohan and his sisters filed an application dated November 23, 1971, for ejectment of Mala Singh from the land in dispute, on the ground that after the death of their father, the three successors had become small landowners and, as such, were entitled to the land, possessed by Mala Singh as tenant.
It would be relevant to mention that Kishan Dutt died on September 4, 1971, leaving his son Madan Mohan and two daughters.
The Collector dismissed the appeal on the following reasoning In this case, the land in dispute is the tenants permissible area and this area is equal to the area as utilised.
This area cannot be reverted back to the appellants.
The application was allowed by the Revenue Officer, vide his order dated December 24, 1963.
The net result was that Kishan Dutt was permitted to retain his permissible area under the Act and the land in possession of Mala Singh was declared as tenants permissible area.
The Commissioner allowed the revision petitions and recommended to the Financial Commissioner to dismiss the application of the tenant for the purchase of the land and to have the question whether the landowners were small landowners redetermined.
The succession opened as soon as the death of the original landowner took place and the question whether the heirs were small landowners assumed importance.
Mala Singh challenged the order of the Financial Commissioner by way of writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana which was dismissed by the High Court on May 26, 1988.
The Haryana Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1972 Haryana Act came into force on December 23, 1972.
The Financial Commissioner by his order dated November 11, 1982, accepted the recommendations of the Commissioner and dismissed the application of Mala Singh for the purchase of the land.
Mala Singh, the appellant, was a tenant since 1951 52 in a part of the land owned by Kishan Dutt.
Since Kishan Dutt was a big landowner, proceedings under the Act were initiated and the Collector, Sirsa by its order dated January 3 1, 1962, declared certain area owned by Kishan Dutt including the land in Mala Singhs possession, as surplus under the Act.
Mala Singh filed an application before the Revenue Officer praying that the land in his possession be reserved as tenants permissible area and be taken out of the surplus pool.
The rulings cited by the appellants are only applicable when the surplus land was number utilised.
Madan Mohan and his sisters filed two revision applications before the Commissioner, Hissar Division.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by KULDIP SINGH, J. Kishan Dutt, father of respondents 5 to 7 in the appeal herein, was a big landowner under the provisions of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953 the Act .
Under the circumstances I feel that the order passed by the Assistant Collector allowing the purchase application is perfectly legal and after the purchase, application for ejectment of the tenant has numbermeaning.
