Sabzi Mandi Samiti & Ors Vs. State of Haryana  INSC 56 (15 February
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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
authority set aside the order of the Commissioner in this regard.
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.
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
main thrust of the contention of Shri A.B.
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.
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.
Sachar, learned Sr. Advocate appearing 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.
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.
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.
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