GURBUX SINGH Vs. GIAN SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for quashing the orders dated December 24, 1965 (Annexure 'A'), May 17, 1967 (Annexure 'B') and August 21, 1968 (Annexure 'C') of respondents 4, 3 and 2 respectively.

(2.) The facts of this petition are that the petitioners were tenants and their landlords had filed an application for ejectment against them. They applied for allotting them surplus area on the ground that an application for ejectment against them had been filed. They were allotted surplus area of Gian Singh respondent No. 1 for resettlement by an order of the Assistant Collector, Second Grade, Fatehabad, dated May 1, 1965. They did not contest the ejectment applications as they had been settled on the surplus area. They were ordered to be ejected by the Assistant Collector, First Grade, by an order dated November 20, 1965. Against the order of the Assistant Collector, Second Grade, Fatehabad, dated May 1, 1965, respondent No. 1 filed an appeal before the Collector who vide his order dated December 24, 1965 (copy Annexure 'A') accepted the same and held that the petitioners could not be settled on the surplus area before they were declared ejected tenants. Consequently, he ordered that the possession of the land in dispute be restored to respondent No. 1. The petitioners went up in appeal against the order of the Collector to the Commissioner, Ambala, who dismissed the same on May 17, 1967 (copy Annexure 'B'). A revision petition was filed by them to the Financial Commissioner against the order of the Commissioner which was also dismissed by him on August 21, 1968 (copy Annexure 'C'). The orders (Annexures 'A', 'B' and 'C' are illegal, ultra vires and without jurisdiction.

(3.) The writ petition has been contested by respondent No. 1 who inter alia pleaded that the petitioners got the allotment made in their names on May 1, 1965, illegally and without jurisdiction. They were not ejected tenants on that date and as such had no right to get the allotment made in their names. The petitioners had colluded with the Revenue Officers and got the land in dispute allotted to them.