BRIJ LAL (DEAD) BY LRS. AND ORS. ETC. ETC. versus STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS. ETC. ETC.

Citation: [2007] 13 S.C.R. 574 · Decided: 13-12-2007 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
BRIJ LAL (DEAD) BY LRS. AND ORS. ETC. ETC. 
-...,_ 
'(_.,... 
v. 
STATE OF HARY ANA AND ORS. ETC. ETC. 
DECEMBER 13, 2007 
B 
!DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND P. SATHASIV AM, JJ.] 
--t. ~ 
Land Laws and Agricultural Tenancy: 
c 
Haryana Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1972; S.18(6): 
Surplus area-Assessment of-Land owners filing application for 
ejectment of tenants on ground of requirement of land for self 
cultivation-Allowed by prescribed authority-Filing of revision 
D 
Petition by tenants-Financial Commissioner/Authority remanded the 
case to Collector, Surplus Area to decide it afresh in terms of 1972 Act 
and also to determine rights of tenants to purchase the land in 
question-Challenge to-Dismissed by High Court-On appeal, Held: 
High Court has failed to take note of the decision of this Court on the 
E 
similar issue in the case of Financial Commissioner, Haryana State & 
Ors. v. Smt. Kela Devi & Anr. -It has also not recorded any finding of 
fact as to whether tenants were entitled to any relief as they challenged 
the order of the Financial Commissioner after a long lapse of time-
Since the basic issues have not been dealt by the High Court, the 
l 
matter is remitted to High Court to decide it afresh taking note of the 
F decision in the above said case. 
Words and Phrases: 
'Any time '-Meaning of in the context of S.18(6) of the Haryana 
G Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1972. 
On 26.7.1961, the Collector, Surplus Area assessed the surplus 
area of one 'P', since deceased. On appeal by two tenants against the 
order of the Collector, the Commissioner remanded the surplus area 
H 
574 
• r 
BRIJ LAL (DEAD) BYLRS. v. STATE OF HARYANA 
575 
case to the Collector to re-decide the issues. The Collector initiated A 
proceedings for deciding surplus area case of 'P'. While the proceedings 
were pending the Haryana Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1972 came 
into force. The Prescribed Authority decided the surplus area cases of 
some other land owners under the 1972 Act and held thatthe totalland 
in respect of each of them was less than the permissible limit. Later, B 
the land owners filed an application for ejectment of their tenants on 
the ground that they were small land owners and the land was required 
by them for self cultivation. The application was allowed by the authority. 
Appeal filed by the respondents-tenants was dismissed by the appellat~ 
authority. The revision petition was dismissed by the authority. Tenants C 
filed a petition under Section 18( 6) of the 1972 Act for invoking suo mo to 
powers by the Financial Commissioner to set aside the orders passed 
by the Prescribed Authority. On 12.9.1997, the Financial Commissioner 
passed an order remanding the cases, including the pending case of 'P' 
to the Collector, Surplus Area, being of the view thatthe surplus area D 
case of 'P', notwithstanding his death, before the commencement of the 
1972 Act, was to be decided under the Act and thereafter the rights of 
the tenants to purchase the land in question was to be determined. A 
review application filed by the heirs of the land owners was rejected by 
the Financial Commissioner on 10.3.1999. Writ petitions were filed by E 
the heirs ofland owners challenging the orders dated 12.9.1997 and 
10.3.1999 of the Financial Commissioner. All the petitions except one 
were dismissed by the High Court. Hence the present appeals. 
Appellants contended thatthe High Court referred to the decisions F 
of this Court in State of Maharashtra v. Annapurnabai and Ors., AIR 
(1985) SC 1403 and State of UP. v. The Civil Judge, Nainital and Ors., 
AIR (1987) SC 16 to decide against them; that these decisions related 
to the States of Maharashtra and Uttar Pradesh respectively and there 
is no provision similar to Section 10-A(b) in the Haryana Act and, G 
therefore, this conceptual distinction has been lost sight of. 
Allowing the appeals, the Court 
HELD: 1.1. Apparently, the High Court has not taken note of the 
decision in the case of Financial Commissioner, Haryana State & Ors. v. H 
576 SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(2007] 13 (Addi.) S.C.R. 
A Smt. Kela Devi & Anr. It has also not recorded any fmding as to whether 
after a long lapse of time, the action taken by the non official 
respondents in challenging the order in favour of the appellants disentitle 
them from any relief. Though the expression used in Section18(6) of 
the Haryana Ceiling on Land Holding Act is "at any time", obviously it 
B has to be a reasonable time and i
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.