Back
FINANCIAL COMMISSIONER HARYANA
Manik Sonawane and S.P. Sharma, F.C.S.
Tek Ram - Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana - Respondent
ROR No. 545/2006-07.
Decided On : 8 April, 2008
Challenge - Order of Surplus Land - The court dismissed the petition challenging the order declaring the petitioner's land surplus, emphasizing that the order of surplus from 1978 was never appealed and had attained finality.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner challenged multiple orders, with the main order being the declaration of the petitioner's land as surplus in 1978. The petitioner sought correction of clerical error in 2003, but it was actually an attempt to exempt some area from the surplus pool.
Finding of the Court:
The court found no merit in the petition, emphasizing that the order of surplus from 1978 was never appealed and had attained finality. The lower courts' decisions were upheld, and the petition was dismissed.
Issues: Challenge to multiple orders, including the declaration of land as surplus, and the attempt to seek correction of clerical error 25 years after the original order.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that the order of surplus from 1978 was never appealed and had attained finality, leading to the dismissal of the petition.
Final Decision: The petition was dismissed in limine due to the lack of merit.
We have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the pleas raised in the petition. His challenge is to the following orders :-
(i) Order of Commissioner Ambala dated 28.2.2008
(ii) Order of Collector, Kaithal dated 12.4.2005
(iii) Order of SDO (C) Kaithal and Prescribed Authority dated 19.10.2004.
(iv) Order dated 17.1.1979 of Prescribed Authority, Narwana
(v) Order dated 27.6.1978 of Prescribed Authority Narwana.
2. The main order under challenge in this case is the one passed by Prescribed Authority, Narwana on 27.6.1978 by which certain area of the petitioner was declared surplus. The first time the petitioner agitated against this order was by way of an application under section 18 of the Haryana Ceiling on Land Holdings Act for correction of clerical mistake in calculating the total holding of the applicant on 17.4.03. However, what was actually sought was to give effect to a Civil court decree in favour of Smt. Narma mother of the petitioner. The Prescribed Authority dismissed the application holding that there was no clerical error in the order dated 27.6.1978. Appeal filed before Collector, Kaithal as also the revision before the Commissioner also failed leading to the present petition.
3. The order declaring land of the petitioner surplus was passed on 27.6.1978. No appeal against that order was ever preferred. An application as discussed above was given only in April, 2003, about 25 years after the order of surplus had been passed seeking correction of clerical error under section 18 while infact what was sought was to get some area exempted from the surplus pool. The Collector and Commissioner after hearing them rightly rejected their appeal and revision since there was no clerical error in the order of Prescribed Authority. The surplus order of 1978 was never challenged in appeal by the petitioner and has attained finality. There is no irregularity in the orders passed by the lower Courts.
In view of the foregoing, we see no merit in the petition and dismiss the same in limine.
Announced.
Petition dismissed.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
