Misri vs Financial Commissioner Haryana

D.S. Tewatia, J. (Oral)

The petitioners have impugned the order Annexure P3, of Special Collector, dated 6th February, 1984, whereby he disposed of the application made by the petitionersherein dated 24th April, 1981 as also the application moved before Assistant Collector 1st Grade, Jhajjar, praying that the surplus area case of Smt. Ganeshi Devi under Punjab Law as well as under Haryana Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1972, be decided.

The Special Collector dismissed those applications on the ground that the very question of the status of Smt. Ganeshi Devi was involved in cases which reached the High Court at the instance of the petitioners. The High Court had sustained the decision of the Financial Commissioner. The question of Ganeshi Devi''s status had come in for consideration on two counts one, that Ganeshi Devi moved an application under section 9 of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act for ejectment of the petitioners on the ground that she was a small landowner and two, when the petitioners claimed to purchase the land under their tenancy on the ground that Ganeshi Devi was a big landowner and they were entitled to purchase the land under their tenancy under section 18 of the said Act. In both the matters, the petitioners lost upto the High Court. The proceedings reached the High Court first time in C.W.P. No. 2282 of 1974 which was dismissed vide judgment dated 9th November, 1976. An L.P.A. No. 494 of 1976 was dismissed on 23rd November, 1976. The petitioners thereafter moved two applications one before Special Collector and the other before Assistant Collector, 1st Grade, Jhajjar, which were dismissed by the impugned order herein. The petitioners filed a second writ petition No. 1820 of 1981. In the second writ petition, after narrating the circumstances of the orders passed by various authorities on the purchase application and the ejectment application and the decision of the High Court in the aforementioned writ petition, the petitioners alleged that the said decisions were procured on the basis of false averments; that they had come to know that Smt. Ganeshi Devi had inherited 79 acres 1 kanal and 4 marlas on the death of her mother Smt. Vasandi Bai and that she was not being entitled to hold more than 30 standard acres or 60 ordinary acres, was decidedly a big landowner ; that the petitionertenants were entitled to purchase the area under their tenancy measuring 232 kanals 2 marlas. Orders of Assistant Collector, the Collector, Commissioner and Financial Commissioner as also the High Court in C.W.P. No. 2282 of 1974 and in L.P.A. No. 494 of 1976 were sought to be quashed as being illegal on grounds specified in the petition. In the prayer clause, the petitioners admittedly sought a direction to the subordinate authorities for allowing the purchase applications of the petitioners which had been earlier rejected by orders which were termed as Annexures P5, P6, P7 and P7A to this writ petition. The Court disposed of the petition with the following order :

"Counsel states that there has been an inordinate delay on the part of the Special Collector to decide the matter. We accordingly direct that the matter should be decided within three months from today. The petition is disposed of in these terms."

The petitioners then moved a third writ petition (C.W.P.No 4770 of 1983). In this petition, after narrating the entire history including the filing and disposal of the two writ petitions already mentioned, prayed that the orders in C.W.P. No. 2282 of 1974, L.P.A. No. 494 of 1976 and C.W.P. No. 1820 of 1981, be recalled, orders of revenue authorities, i.e., of respondents Nos. 1 to 4 and of respondent No. 6 be quashed, a direction be issued to respondent No. 6 to decide the surplus area case of respondent No. 5. This petition was dismissed by a Division Bench of this Court with the following observation :

"No ground for reconsideration of decision in C.W.P. No.1820 of 1981, C.W.P. No 2282 of 1974 and L.P.A. No. 494 of 1976, has been made out. Consequently, the writ petition is dismissed."

The short question that arises for consideration in the wake of the present writ petition is as to whether the Special Collector was right in dismissing the applications in question of the petitioners requiring the Special Collector to determine the status of respondentlandowner Smt. Ganeshi Devi merely on the ground that the matter stood concluded by the decisions of the High Court and she was not competent to reopen the question.

It has been argued on behalf of the petitioners that the State Government not being party to the proceedings initiated by the landowner for ejectment of the petitioners and those which were initiated by the petitioners for purchasing land under their tenancy, the decisions rendered by any authority in those proceedings were therefore not binding upon the State and the Special Collector was therefore entitled to determine the surplus area case of the landowner unhindered by the decision rendered in the aforementioned proceedings. It has also been canvassed that status of landowner whether she is small landowner or big landowner can be determined by the Collector in terms of sections 5 B and 19B of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act and not while dealing with the matter under section 9 or section 18 of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act.

So far as the first contention advanced on behalf of the petitioners is concerned, it may be observed that the State Government no doubt was not a party to the proceedings initiated in terms of section 9 or in terms of section 18 of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, and the decision rendered in those proceedings would not be binding upon the State Government. The Collector either suo motu or on being moved by the petitioners was entitled to enquire into the status of a given landowner. However, in so far as the petitioners are concerned, the decision that became final, would be binding upon them and they cannot be heard to question the binding nature of these decisions merely on the ground that the Collector had not determined the status of their landlord, under section 5B or 19B of the Act.

So far as the stand of the Collector is concerned, it may be observed that the judgments rendered in the aforesaid proceedings would have no binding effect on the State as the State was not a party to those proceedings. He is, therefore, duty bound to enquire into the status of the respondentlandowner when from the allegations made in the application at least a prima facie case for enquiry into the status of the landowner had been made out. The Collector is, therefore, directed to decide the status of the landowner Smt. Ganeshi Devi and dispose of the applications on merits only so far as the same concern with the question of status of the landowner in question at the relevant time when the ejectment was sought on the ground that the landowner was a small landowner. It may also be observed that the decision of the Collector shall not affect the orders rendered earlier between the parties whereby the petitioners'' ejectment was ordered on nonpayment of rent. The petition stands disposed of accordingly. No order as to costs.