JAGRAJ SINGH Vs. MALKIAT SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a revision petition under Para 13 of Haryana Utilization of Surplus and Others Areas Scheme, 1976 read with Section 18(6) of Haryana Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1972 against the orders dated 8.6.2000, 11.5.1999 and 28.5.1997 passed by the Commissioner, Hisar Division, Collector and the Prescribed Authority, respectively.

(2.) BRIEF facts of this case are that Malkiat Singh-respondent No. 1 moved an application for execution of allotment order dated 30.12.1985 and giving possession of land measuring 52 Kanals 6 Marlas on the ground that the disputed land was allotted and Form under U.S. 3 was issued to him but the possession was not given to him as the owner had filed an appeal. The Prescribed Authority vide his order dated 28.5.1997 dismissed the application holding that the land in dispute was not surplus. The respondent filed an appeal before the Collector, Sirsa who vide his orders dated 11.5.1999 accepted the appeal and remanded the case on the ground that the surplus case of Shri Karam Singh was decided on 6.11.1962 by the Collector, Surplus Area, under the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953 which has upheld by the High Court vide orders dated 29.1.1969 in CWP No. 646 of 1963 and the allotment authority allotted this land on 30.12.1985 against which no appeal was filed and the Prescribed Authority was directed by the Collector to give possession of the disputed land to the petitioner. Against this order of the Collector, the petitioner filed a revision petition before the Commissioner who vide his order dated 8.6.2000 upheld the order of the Collector and dismissed the revision in limine. Against this order of Commissioner, this revision petition has been filed before this Court.

(3.) THE counsel for the respondent said that the order of the Prescribed Authority 6.11.1962 declaring the land surplus was challenged in the High Court and this was dismissed on 29.1.1969 as there was nothing to show that there was family settlement and that the land was actually transferred. He contended that the petitioner was resorting to prolong litigation to deprive him of the possession of the land which was allotted to him according to the law. The executing Court cannot go behind the order of the allotment passed by the Prescribed Authority. The pendency of a case in a Civil Court cannot affect the utilisation of surplus area. The petitioner has exhausted all its legal remedies against the decision of the Prescribed Authority as its appeals and revisions have been dismissed at all levels.