LPA No. 890 of 2009 [1]
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
LPA No. 890 of 2009
Date of Decision: 3.12.2009
Surgyan ......Appellant
Versus
State of Haryana and others .......Respondents
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE JORA SINGH
1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the
judgment?
2. To be referred to the Reporters or not?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?
Present: Shri Hemant Sarin, Advocate, for the appellant.
Shri Gagandeep Wasu, Senior DAG, Haryana, for
for respondent Nos. 1 to 4.
HEMANT GUPTA, J. (Oral).
The appellant is aggrieved against the order passed by the
learned Single Judge of this Court on 30.5.2009, whereby his writ
petition, challenging the order dated 3.3.2006 passed by the Collector
cancelling the alltoment of 8 kanals of land in his favour; order in appeal
dated 9.4.2007 and the order passed in revision by the Financial
Commissioner on 25.3.2009, was dismissed.
8 kanals of land situated in village Bhondsi, was allotted to
the appellant on 15.5.2004 being landless and a resident of village Rithoj.
The allotment in favour of the appellant was challenged by respondent
LPA No. 890 of 2009 [2]
Nos. 5 to 7 by way of an appeal before the Collector. However, before the
Collector, a statement was made on 9.1.2006 by the counsel for
respondent Nos. 5 to 7 to withdraw their appeal. However, the learned
Appellate Authority found that the allotment of land to a person
belonging to other village is a secret arrangement and doubtful.
Therefore, the appeal was accepted and the order of allotment was set
aside. Such order was affirmed by the Commissioner and in revision by
the Financial Commissioner.
It could not be disputed by the learned counsel for the
appellant that he is not a resident of village Bhondsi, where the land in
question is situated and allotment was made, but resident of village
Rithoj. Once the appellant is not resident of the village in which the land
is situated, the allotment could not have been made in favour of the
appellant. Though respondent Nos. 5 to 7 have made a statement to
withdraw the appeal, but no order was passed by the learned Collector
permitting the said respondents to withdraw the appeal. The appeal was
not dismissed as withdrawn. Therefore, the Appellate Authority was
seized of the appeal and could pass an order examining the legality of the
order of allotment in favour of the present appellant.
Learned counsel for the appellant has argued that the
Collector has no jurisdiction to take action suo-motu in respect of the
allotment made in favour of the appellant as it is the Financial
Commissioner alone, who has been conferred with the power to take suo-
motu action under Section 18 of the Haryana Ceiling on Land Holding
Act, 1972 [ for short `the Act’ ]. However, it is not a case of an action by
LPA No. 890 of 2009 [3]
the Collector suo-motu. There was an appeal filed before the Collector by
respondent Nos. 5 to 7. The Collector has exercised the jurisdiction while
entertaining such appeal. Though respondent Nos. 5 to 7 have made a
statement of withdrawing their appeal, but the fact remains, that the order
passed by the Collector has been affirmed by the Financial
Commissioner, which shows that the Financial Commissioner has not
found any illegality in the order passed by the Collector, cancelling the
allotment made in favour of the present appellant.
Learned counsel for the appellant states that both the villages
i.e. village Bhondsi and village Rithoj, fall within the same revenue
estate, and have a common Patwari, who is looking after the affairs of
the said villages, therefore, allotment could not be cancelled for the
reason, the appellant is resident of another village.
Mere fact that one Patwari is looking after the revenue affairs
of two villages, does not make the two villages as part of the same
revenue estate. Village Bhondsi and Village Rithoj, are separate villages
and being a resident of village Rithoj, the appellant cannot claim to be
entitled to the allotment of the land situated in village Bhondsi. In fact, it
is not disputed that allotment could be made only in favour of resident of
the same village.
Learned counsel for the appellant has further relied upon
Hulas Raj Baij Nath v. Firm K.B. Bass and Co., AIR 1968 SC 111; R.
Rathinavel Chettiar and another v. V. Sivaraman and others, (1999)4
Supreme Court Cases 89 and a Division Bench judgment of the Calcutta
High Court reported as Rajesh Kumar and others v. Rajan and others,
LPA No. 890 of 2009 [4]
2006(3) SLR 52, in support of the argument that once a statement has
been made to withdraw an appeal or proceedings, the Court has no
jurisdiction to continue with a lis and that the Court is bound to accept
such request and dispose of the lis as withdrawn. However, the said
judgments have no applicability to the facts of the present case. The
surplus land vests with the State. The State is a custodian of the public
property. It is not a lis between two private individuals, as was in the
three cases referred to above, by the learned counsel for the appellant. As
a custodian of the public property, the Collector, was duty bound to
examine the legality of the allotment made in favour of the appellant.
Therefore, we do not find that the judgments referred to by
the learned counsel for the appellant have any applicability in the facts of
the present case.
Consequently, we do not find any patent illegality or
irregularity in the impugned order, which may warrant interference by
this Court in the present Letters Patent Appeal.
Dismissed.
[ HEMANT GUPTA ]
JUDGE
[ JORA SINGH ]
JUDGE
03-12-2009
ds