Punjab-Haryana High Court
Date Of Decision: 11.11.2013 vs The State Of Haryana And Others on 11 November, 2013
Author: Rakesh Kumar Jain
Bench: Rakesh Kumar Jain
CWP No.24003 of 2013 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
*****
1. CWP No.24003 of 2013
Date of Decision: 11.11.2013
*****
Hari Ram and another
. . . .Petitioners
Versus
The State of Haryana and others
. . . . Respondents
*****
2. CWP No.24563 of 2013
*****
Ranbir and others
. . . .Petitioners
Versus
The State of Haryana and others
. . . . Respondents
*****
CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN
*****
Present: Mr.Ashok Verma, Advocate,
for the petitioners.
*****
RAKESH KUMAR JAIN, J.
This order shall dispose of two writ petitions namely, CWP No.24003 of 2013 titled as "Hari Ram and another Vs The State of Haryana and others" and CWP No.24563 of 2013 titled as "Ranbir and others Vs. The State of Haryana and others" as the issue involved in both the petitions is identical. However, the facts are being extracted from CWP No.24003 of 2013 titled as "Hari Ram and another Vs The State of Haryana and others". CWP No.24003 of 2013 -2-
The brief facts of the case are that father of the petitioners was a big landowner. His land was declared surplus on 19.12.1960 under the Punjab Security of land Tenures Act, 1953 [for short 'the Act']. Out of the surplus land area, land measuring 18 kanals and 2 marlas, the land in dispute, was allotted to respondent No.8 by the Sub Divisional Officer (Civil)-cum-Prescribed Authority/Allotment Authority, Hansi Tehsil and District Hisar on 5.6.1980 and possession was delivered on 11.6.1980. Though Forms U.S.-3 was issued to the allottee in recognition of the allotment but he did not pay the first installment and took possession on 11.6.1980 but as per paragraphs 9 and 10 of the Haryana Utilization of Surplus and other Areas Scheme, 1976 [for short 'the Scheme'], he was bound to deposit the amount of first installment of compensation within 30 days of taking possession. According to the petitioners, a notice was issued to respondent No.8 on 12.6.1984 to deposit the first installment of compensation in the Treasury but despite that neither he appeared before the Allotment Authority nor deposited the Ist installment, therefore, the allotment was cancelled on 27.2.2004 and the Halqa Girdawar was directed to take possession. The respondent No.8 challenged the order of the Collector by way of appeal which was dismissed on 18.4.2007 but the said order was set aside by the Commissioner vide his order dated 29.12.2008 and remitted the case back to the Sub Divisional Officer (Civil)-cum- CWP No.24003 of 2013 -3- Prescribed Authority, Hansi with a direction to intimate the total price of the land with interest till date and allowed one months time to respondent No.8 to make the deposit. The petitioners challenged the order of the Commissioner by way of revision under Section 18(4) of the Haryana Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1972 [for short 'the 1972 Act'], which was disposed of on 24.7.2013 with the following observations: -
"It would not be fair if the allottee deposits the price of the land today which was determined in 1980 at the time of allotment. As such we order payment of compound interest of 12% on the compensation determined by the Allotment Authority to be calculated from the date of allotment. This entire exercise should be completed within three months. The allottees shall make the payment within next three months. In case the allottees fail to do so within the time given, the allotment shall deem to have been cancelled."
Learned counsel for the petitioners has though fairly admitted that the petitioners would not be in a position CWP No.24003 of 2013 -4- to challenge the order of allotment because once the land is declared surplus and vests with the Government free from all encumbrances, they are only entitled to compensation, therefore, he has prayed that the amount of compensation should have been assessed at prevailing rate. It is further submitted that even if it is presumed that at the time when Forms U.S.-3 was issued on 5.6.1980, in which neither the total price of land nor the amount of installment has been mentioned is taken to be correct, the petitioners were asked to appear by notice on 27.2.2004 for the purpose of deposit of the amount of compensation to be paid to the landowner but still the amount was not deposited. In this regard, I have perused the order of the Commissioner as well, who had found the following infirmities: -
"(A) In none of Forms U.S.-3, which were issued on 5.6.1980 and which are placed on the file of the lower Court at pages 41 and 83, neither the total price of the land nor the amount of the installment has been mentioned.
(B) Thereafter, the first notice for depositing the installment was issued on 30.5.1983 which is available at pages 85 and 104 of the lower court file. In this notice CWP No.24003 of 2013 -5- also neither the price has been mentioned nor the amount of the installment has been disclosed.
(C) Thereafter, seven allottees Sarva
Shri Gulzari, Tara, Jogi Ram etc.
themselves submitted an
application to the Sub-Divisional officer (Civil)-cum-Prescribed Authority, Hansi on 28.4.2003 which is at page 117 of the lower court file and on the back side of this application itself the Naib Tehsildar (Surplus Area) proposed that "there is a provision in para 10(3) of the Utilization Scheme for canceling the allotment on failure to deposit the installment and therefore, it would be appropriate to summon the allottees through notice for producing the proof."
The Sub-Divisional officer (Civil)-
cum-Prescribed Authority, Hansi, affirmed this proposal on 9.7.2003 and all were summoned also for hearing on 16.7.2003. All these notices are placed on pages CWP No.24003 of 2013 -6- 119 to 136 for the file of the lower Court. There is no mention of amount of installment in these notices also.
(D) Except one allottee Thambu Ram, service of the notices was not effected on any of the remaining allottees. It is written in all the notices that he had gone out of station or that he resides in some other villages."
According to the aforesaid, respondent No.8 was never informed about the amount which has to be deposited by him and on that account, the allotment in his favour has been protected by the Financial Commissioner vide his order dated 29.12.2008 and as regards the compensation, the petitioners have been duly compensated with the payment of compound interest @ 12% determined by the Allotment Authority which is to be calculated from the date of allotment.
Thus, in view of the aforesaid discussion, I do not find any error in the impugned order. Hence, the writ petitioners are hereby dismissed.
(RAKESH KUMAR JAIN) 11.11.2013 JUDGE Vivek Pahwa Vivek 2013.11.14 10:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document