Ram Sarup (deceased) by his L.Rs. vs State of Haryana

P.C. Jain, A.C.J.

Ram Sarup and others have filed this appeal under Clause X of the Letters Patent, against the judgment and order of a learned Single Judge of this Court, dated 15th April, 1980, by which C.W.P. No. 1322 of 1969, filed by Mohan Lal, respondent, was allowed and the impugned orders passed by the Commissioner, Ambala Division, Ambala and the Sales Tax Tribunal, Haryana (Exercising the powers of the Financial Commissioner), Chandigarh, copies Annexures ''E'' and ''F'' respectively were quashed.

In order to appreciate the controversy, certain salient features of the case may be noticed :

Kewal Ram, predecessorininterest of the appellants was a big landowner having his land in two districts of Karnal and Ambala. On January 11, 1961, the Special Collector declared 39. 81/2 Standard Acres as surplus area in his hands. Mohan Lal, respondent and some other tenants were settled on some part of the surplus area and its possession was delivered to them in the month of October, 1963.

On an application made by Mangloo and Antoo who claimed themselves to be the old tenants on the area measuring 4 Bighas 4 Biswas, the Sub Divisional Officer (Civil) (Collector Jagadhri) vide his order dated February 3, 1964, made a representation to the Special Collector to review its order dated January 11, 1961, so as to exclude area measuring 4 Bighas 4 Biswas from the surplus pool. The special Collector after securing the necessary permission to review from the Commissioner, amended the original order, copy Annexure ''A'' to the writ petition, dated January 11, 1961, so as to exclude the area claimed by Mangloo and Antoo as their permissible area, vide order dated July 2, 1964. Kewal Ram landowner, who was then present before the Special Collector, did not raise any objection and accepted the claim of the said tenants. Kewal Ram died on July 22, 1964. Thereafter his heirs (now appellants) moved an application before the Special Collector that the inheritance of Kewal Ram having devolved upon them and they being small landowners, the area declared as surplus area may be released from the surplus pool. The Special Collector allowed that application partially vide order dated August, 31, 1964 and directed that surplus area which had not been utilised so far, would not be utilised and shall stand released.

Feeling dissatisfied, the appellants filed an appeal before the Commissioner, who after recording some evidence and on arriving at a finding that there were many old tenants on the land in dispute whose area had been wrongly declared surplus, set aside the surplus proceedings and remanded the case to the Special Collector for fresh determination of the surplus area. Mohan Lal (writ petitioner), who was settled on the surplus area, filed a revision petition before the Financial Commissioner but the same was dismissed vide order dated November 29, 1968. Still dissatisfied, Mohan Lal, petitioner filed C.W.P. No 1322 of 1969 in this Court, which as earlier observed, was allowed by the learned Single Judge. Hence, the present letters patent appeal by Ram Sarup and others, the heirs of the original landowner.

It is contended by Mr. P.N. Aggarwal, learned counsel for the appellants that on the passing of a fresh order on July 2, 1964, the earlier order of the Special Collector, dated January 11, 1961 had become nonexistent, that the remand order passed by the Commissioner for redetermining the surplus area of the original landowner in the hands of the appellants, was perfectly legal and that the learned Single Judge erred in law in arriving at a finding that the order dated January 11, 1961, still existed. In support of his contention, the learned counsel had placed reliance on the judgments in Sushil Kumar Sen v. State of Bihar, AIR 1975 Supreme Court 1185, Nibaran Chandra Sikdar v. Abdul Hakim and others, AIR 1928 Calcutta 418 and Kanhaiya Lal and others v. Baldeo Prasad, I.L.R. (Vol XXVIII) Allahabad 240.

After hearing the learned counsel for the appellants, we find no merit in the contention of the learned counsel for the appellants. It may be observed at the outset that the order of the Commissioner, by which the Special Collector was allowed to review the previous order, has not been produced. However, there is no gainsaying, as it is not controverted by the learned counsel for the appellants, that the review was allowed by the Commissioner only to the extent of 4 Bighas 4 Biswas of land on which Mangloo and Antoo claimed their right as old tenants. This being so, the learned Single Judge is right in holding that the order of the Special Collector dated January 11, 1961, stood modified only to the extent to which review was specifically allowed by the Commissioner. In the wake of the order of the Commissioner allowing review subsequently, the Commissioner on appeal had no jurisdiction to remand the case with a direction that the whole matter regarding the declaration of surplus area case of the landowners be looked into afresh. The decisions on which reliance has been placed by the learned counsel for the appellants, has no applicability to the facts of the case in hand. As earlier observed, the review by the Commissioner was allowed only to the extent of 4 Bighas 4 Biswas and the remaining order of the Special Collector dated January 11, 1961, had become final.

In this view of the matter, we find that the learned Single Judge rightly allowed the petition of Mohan Lal, respondent, and quashed the orders of the Commissioner, Ambala Division, Ambala and the Sales Tax Tribunal, Haryana, Chandigarh, dated April 4, 1967 and November 29, 1968, copies Annexures ''E'' and ''F'', respectively.

No other point arises for consideration.

For the reasons recorded above, this appeal fails and is dismissed, but, in the circumstances of the case, we make no order as to costs.