AJMER SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS order shall dispose of Civil Writ Petition No. 4355 of 1980 filed on behalf of the land-owner as also Civil Writ Petition Nos. 315 and 316 of 1982 filed on behalf of the vendees from the land-owner. The facts of the case have, however, been extracted from petition No. 4355 of 1980, which are as follow :ajmer Singh was a big land-owner and the concerned authority, i. e. the Collector (Agrarian), vide his order dated April 15, 1959 declared 3 Standard Acres and 5 1/2 Units of land belonging to Ajmer Singh as surplus under the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953. The matter was agitated by Ajmer Singh and the appeal filed by him before Commissioner was dismissed on December 4, 1979 on the solitary ground that the same was barred by time. Still being aggrieved, Ajmer Singh filed revision before the Financial Commissioner, which too did not find favour with him and the same was also dismissed vide his order dated August 1, 1980. The land-owner, Ajmer Singh, has approached this Court for setting aside the orders aforesaid, primarily on the ground that inasmuch as Form 'f' which was issued under Rule 6 of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Rules, 1956, was served upon Ajmer Singh on October 17, 1980, as is apparently made out even from the contents of paragraph 6 of the written statement filed in the present case and that being so, the limitation to agitate the impugned orders was sixty days from the date of service of Form 'f' and not from the date of the order. It as much as Ajmer Singh died during the pendency of the present petition, the second point raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the land having not been utilized, the same had to be re-assessed under the Punjab Land Reforms Act, 1972. ft requires to be mentioned here that other two petitions have been filed by the vendees, who are stated to have purchased the land in the year 1954, i. e. prior to the order declaring the land of Ajmer Singh as surplus.

(2.) IT is contended on behalf of these petitioners that they were necessary parties in the surplus proceedings and having not been admittedly heard, the impugned orders have to fail on that ground also.

(3.) IN the written statement filed on behalf of the respondents, the facts, as narrated above, have not been disputed. It is, however, pleaded that inasmuch as Ajmer Singh was present at the time when the order dated April 15, 1959 by the Collector (Agrarian) was passed, the limitation would commence from the date of passing of the order or at the most from the date when certified copy of the order was made available to him.