DALIP SINGH Vs. FINANCIAL COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) I. The subject matter of lis

(2.) THE writ petition is at the instance of some persons claiming to be tenants of the property which had been declared as surplus and allotted to eligible persons under the scheme pursuant to the declaration made under the Punjab Land Reforms Act, 1972. Admittedly, the holding of one Kashmir Singh was said to be in excess of the ceiling area and declared as such on 30.07.1976. The declaration specified 217 kanals of land as falling in surplus pool and the order of the Collector had not been challenged by the landowner himself. This declaration was admittedly after the landowner had also given his reservation in form -A. After allotment in favour of private respondents 5 to 7, mutation had been made in their names and the property had been delivered possession of.

(3.) THE learned senior counsel for the petitioners assails the order passed by the Commissioner as affirmed by the Financial Commissioner on a plea that the actual holding of the property in the hands of the petitioners was noticed from the jamabandi entries of 1966 itself and admittedly, they were entries subsequent to the declaration as well. What was entered as in the hands of the landowner was but a stray entry which ought to be discarded. The counsel would also refer to the fact that the petitioners were not close relatives of the landowner as claimed and he would refer to the landowner's own statement that he was barely 6 years old at the time of partition when he came from the place now in Pakistan and he was being taken care by his uncle and the properties were being managed by the petitioners and they were attempting to take advantage of his relative young age and appropriate his lands. According to him, this statement of the landowner would itself show that the landowner had no close affection for his uncle and he was apprehending an attempt to usurp his land holding. Yet another circumstance, which according to the learned senior counsel that would weigh in his favour, is the fact that a civil suit was filed in the year 1977 against the landlord where the landlord admitted that the properties were held by the petitioners as tenants and the revenue authorities could not have ignored civil court decree. So long as the civil court decree stood, the authorities were bound to give effect to the same. The counsel would refer me to the decision of the Supreme Court in Daljit Kaur and another Versus Muktar Steels Pvt. Ltd. and another - : 2014(1) Law Herald (SC) 668 as laying down a proposition that when a decree was passed without any dispute being raised, it could not be appealed against or assailed by any party. The same position was also sought to be reiterated through a decision of this court in Zehro Versus Balbir Singh - : AIR 2011 (Punjab) 127that held that a consent decree is always as good as a decree obtained after contest and would bind all concerned unless the same was avoided in any of the permissible ways provided under Order 23 of CPC.