JOGINDER SINGH SON OF MASTAN SINGH AND OTHERS Vs. PUNJAB STATE THROUGH DISTRICT COLLECTOR, SANGRUR AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) There is no representation on behalf of the appellants. Learned counsel for the respondents is present and ready. Having regard to the fact that the appeal is of the year 1983 and it is identified by this Court on the administrative side as one of the oldest cases to be taken up immediately for disposal on merits, I proceed to dispose of the case on the basis of records and with the assistance of counsel for the respondents on merits.

(2.) The plaintiffs, who had filed the suit for declaration lost at the trial Court as well as the Appellate Court. They are in appeal before this Court assailing the decisions. The suit was for a declaration that the order passed by the District Collector Sangrur on 26.07.1969 allotting the property measuring 5 bighas 5 biswas in Khasra No.1387 in village Chaunda in favour of Bhag Singh arrayed as the defendant was void and for a permanent injunction restraining Bhag Singh from, in any manner, interfering with the plaintiffs' possession. It must be immediately noticed that the suit for declaration as referred to in the preamble of the plaint is distinct from the way the prayer column is couched in paragraph 12, where the declaration sought is that the cancellation of allotment of land made in favour of the plaintiffs' was void and for an injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the possession. The inconsistency could be reconciled only by the fact that admittedly the property was the subject of allotment in the year 1961 under Nazool Land Transfer Rules, 1956 by the Deputy Commissioner (Collector) Sangrur on 15.06.1961 and the plaintiffs themselves had made reference to the fact that this allotment had been cancelled subsequently on 13.07.1978. The plaintiff is contending that this cancellation was void ab initio since the same has been passed against the principles of natural justice. The subsequent allotment made in favour of the 2 nd defendant was, therefore, contended to be not valid and the plaintiffs had sought for restraint against them from interfering with the plaintiffs' possession.

(3.) The State remained ex parte and gave no reason as to how the proceedings were initiated for cancellation of allotment in the year 1978 and how a fresh allotment was made in favour of the 2 nd defendant. The Courts below, however, held that there was no proof that the property had been even allotted in favour of the plaintiffs and that possession of the property had been handed over to the plaintiffs. The Court also found that there had been a cancellation of order of allotment and the plaintiff could not file a suit without challenging the cancellation itself. A mere characterization of the cancellation as void cannot be a ground for upholding the claim for injunction against the defendant. The suit is contested only by the legal representatives of the private respondents in whose favour the subsequent allotment was made.