http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 3  

PETITIONER: ADARSH SABZI MANDI SAMITI & ORS.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: STATE OF HARYANA

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       15/02/2000

BENCH: S.S.Ahamad, D.P.Mohapatro

JUDGMENT:

     D.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.  The impugned order reads:  No ground to interfere has been made out.   Dismissed The controversy raised in the case relates to  distribution of surplus land under Khasra Nos.  178  and 189 in the Village Ballabhgarh, District Faridabad, Haryana. The  land is stated to be banjar land.  It was initially a part  of the land holding of Col.  Harinder Singh Brar.  The surplus  land  in his possession was determined and  Khasara Nos.178  and  189  were included in the  surplus  area.   It appears  that  the  provisions of Haryana  Ceiling  on  Land Holding  Act,  1972)  were made applicable  in  the  matter. There  are  four  parties to the controversy raised  in  the proceeding;   Col.   Harinder  Singh Brar,  the  land  owner (since deceased represented by Lrs.);  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.

     Feeling  aggrieved by the order passed by the  Special Collector,  the  parties  moved   the  Commissioner,  Ambala Division  in appeal.  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.  102 of 1988-89 respectively.  Another petition was filed  by  the  State  of Haryana, ROR  No.220  of  1988-89, invoking  suo-motu  power of the Financial  Commissioner  to correct  certain  errors and illegalities committed  by  the Commissioner,  Ambala Division.  The Financial  Commissioner by  the order dated 31.8.90 disposed of all the cases.   The revisional  authority  after discussing the rival claims  of the  contesting  parties  formulated   three  issues  :   1. Whether  rectangle  numbers  178 and 189 in  revenue  estate Ballabgarh  form part of the surplus area of the  landowner, the  late  Col Harinder Singh?  2.  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 ?  and  3.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 3  

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.

     The  revisional  authority  answered the  first  issue holding  that  khasra  nos.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  no.  387 of village Dhana.  The revisional authority further  held that since khasra no.178 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 not tenable and is rejected.

     Considering  the  claim of the heirs of Jawahar  Singh for  allotment of Khasra No.  178 and 189 in Ballabgarh  the revisional authority held that Jawahar Singh is not entitled to be allotted any land and the order of the Commissioner in his favour also suffers from the defect that he had given no opportunity  to  the other claimants of this land i.e.   307 other  allottees before allotting the land to Jawahar Singh. The  revisional  authority  set  aside   the  order  of  the Commissioner in this regard.

     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 come to  each claimant.  That would mean that the land would  not be  utilised  for  the purpose of agriculture and  the  very object of the land utilisation scheme would be defeated.  On these  grounds the revisional authority quashed the order of allotment  of land in khasra Nos.  178 and 189 in favour  of the 307 claimants.

     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  main  thrust  of  the  contention  of  Shri  A.B. Rohtagi,  Senior  Advocate appearing for the  appellants  is that  taking  into consideration 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  counsel  further submitted  that two other writ petitions, CWP No.2994/91 and C.W.P  5979/91  filed by the heirs of the land  owners  Col. Harinder  Singh  Brar and the heirs of Gajraj Singh  against the  same order of the Financial Commissioner are pending in the  High  Court.  In the circumstances the learned  counsel contended  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.

     Shri  Rajinder Sachar, learned Sr.  Advocate appearing

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 3  

for  the respondent, while not disputing the statement  made by  the  learned counsel for the appellants that  two  other writ  petitions arising from the same order of the Financial Commissioner  are still pending in the High Court, contended 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 noted earlier.

     We  have carefully perused the order of the revisional authority.  The revisional authority has discussed in detail the  case  of the parties claiming allotment of the land  in question.   On a bare perusal of the order it is clear  that the  claims set up by the rival claimants are  inter-linked. Therefore,  it is apt and proper that all the writ petitions filed   against  the  revisional   order  of  the  Financial Commissioner  dated  31.8.1990 should be heard together  and disposed  of  on merit.  We may add here that the  appellant nos.  3 to 183 are amongst the three hundred seven allottees who  sought  allotment of land as landless  persons  earning their  livelihood  by selling vegetables and they have  been using  the land in question since long.  It hardly needs any emphasis  that  such a case deserves closer scrutiny by  the High  Court  and  not in limine dismissal by  an  unreasoned order  as  has been done in the case.  The order is  clearly unsupportable  and has to be set aside.  Since the case will be  considered  by the High Court on merit we  refrain  from making  any  observation  on the merits of the case  of  the parties.

     In  the  result the appeal is allowed.   The  impugned order  dismissing the writ petition No.4464/91 is set  aside and  the writ petition is restored to the file of the Punjab and  Haryana  High Court to be disposed of along  with  Writ Petition Nos.2994/91 and 5979/91 and any other Writ Petition which   is  filed  against  the   order  of  the   Financial Commissioner  dated  31.8.90, and is pending, in  accordance with the law, and after giving opportunity of hearing to the parties.   Since  the controversy has been lingering  for  a long  time and the writ petition in the High Court was filed in the year 1991 we request the High Court to dispose of the cases  at the earliest.  There will, however, be no order as to costs.