PARTHVI SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This order proposes to dispose of three identical writ petitions bearing CWP Nos. 4367, 4368 and 4369 of 1992, because all the three cases are based on identical facts qua the same piece of land. However, for the facility of reference, the facts are being culled out from CWP No. 4367 of 2992 (Parthvi Singh and others v. State of Punjab and others). The facts, which are necessary for disposal of these writ petitions can be put into narrow compass. Late Sh. Hazari Lal was the big land owner. Surplus area proceedings were initiated against him and land measuring 2 Std. Acres (2 units) came to be declared surplus in his hands at the first instance on 22.3.1961. This order attained finality between the parties vide order dated 26.9.1969. Pursuant to the orders dated 26.9.1969, when the possession was sought to be taken from big landowner late Sh. Hazari Lal, he filed his objections, which came to be dismissed by Special Collector (Agrarian), Ferozepur, vide order dated 14.12.1988 (Annexure P-1). Feeling aggrieved, three separate appeals were filed before the Commissioner, Ferozepur Division, Ferozepur. First appeal was filed by late Sh. Hazari Lal himself.

(2.) During the pendency of this appeal, Hazari Lal died on 24.3.1990. His legal representatives were brought on record. However, all the three appeals were dismissed by the Commissioner, Ferozepur Division, vide order dated 26.6.1991 (Annexure P-2). He did not accept the contention raised on behalf of the petitioners that possession of only 8 kanals 19 marlas was taken, vide Rapat No. 271 dated 15.3.1989 (Annexure P-3) and the balance land still remained in the physical possession of the legal representatives of late Sh. Hazari Lal-big land owner. Petitioners challenged the above said orders passed by the Commissioner by way of three revision petitions before the Financial Commissioner. The plea raised on behalf of the petitioners did not find favour with the Financial Commissioner as well, who dismissed all the three revision petitions, vide one common order dated 3.12.1991 (Annexure P- 4). Hence, these three writ petitions.

(3.) The writ petitions were admitted and dispossession of the petitioners was stayed, vide order dated 3.4.1992 passed by the Division Bench of this court. Respondents filed their written state-ment. That is how, this court is seized of the matter.