PURAN SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The predecessor-in-interest of the petitioner Inder Singh (hereinafter referred to as the land owner) owned land in Village Lang, District Patiala. As per order of the Collector (Agrarian), Fatehgarh Sahib, dated 23.12.1969, 1.52 S.A. of his land was declared as surplus. On an appeal filed by him, the Commissioner, Patiala Division, Patiala, vide his order dated 04.06.1970, remanded the case back to the Collector for fresh decision. On fresh decision, it was found that the land owner owned 35.38 S.A. of land and after considering the objections filed by him, 1.56 S.A. of land was found to be surplus.

(2.) In the meanwhile, the Punjab Land Reforms Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the 1972 Act) was promulgated and under the provisions of this Act, the land owner filed his declaration before the Collector, Patiala Sub Division, Patiala. After considering the report of the Patwari and the proof furnished by the land owner, the Collector, Patiala Sub Division, Patiala, reassessed the issue regarding surplus land of the land owner and through his order dated 29.12.1975, held that the land owner had no area excess of his permissible area. Though the order dated 29.12.1975 was subsequent to the earlier order dated 17.09.1975 and being by the same authority i.e. the Collector, Patiala Sub Division, Patiala, it would have normally been considered to be in supersession of the earlier order and should have laid the entire matter to rest, but for the reasons best known to the land owner, he filed an appeal against the earlier order of the Collector dated 17.09.1975. The appeal was considered and rejected by the Additional Commissioner, Patiala Division, Patiala, vide his order dated 10.01.1980. On behalf of the land owner, the petitioner (his son) moved an application to the authorities dated 14.10.1994 bringing to their notice the above noted facts and requested them to re-consider the entire matter in view of the subsequent order dated 29.12.1975 through which it had specifically been held that there was no surplus land. He further brought to the notice of the authorities that through allotment dated 18.01.1983, the so- called surplus land, as declared vide the earlier order of the Collector dated 17.09.1975, had been allotted to one Asa Singh (respondent no. 3), but since the petitioner was in possession of the land in question and in the light of the subsequent order of the Collector dated 29.12.1975, it was requested that the entire matter be re-considered. When the request made by the petitioner was not responded to, he got issued the legal notice to the official respondents, which was also ignored, leading to the filing of the present writ.

(3.) Vide order dated 10.05.1995, a Division Bench of this Court had issued notice of motion to the respondents and further directed that status quo regarding possession be maintained in the matter. Thereafter, Shri T. R. Arora, Advocate appeared on behalf of respondent no. 3, but as he did not file any written statement, on 11.10.1996, the writ petition was admitted. While admitting the writ petition, it was further directed that interim directions would continue during the pendency of the matter before this Court. Today, the matter has come up before me after about 19 years of its filing. In the meanwhile, Puran Singh is stated to have died and resultantly, an application was moved to bring on record his legal heirs. This application was allowed by me on 05.11.2014. In spite of the passage of 19 years, neither the State nor the private respondents have bothered to file the written statement. Respondent no. 3 also remains unrepresented. In view of the above, the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner go un-rebutted. Therefore, I am left with no other alternative but to accept the un-rebutted averments made by the petitioner and base my decision thereon.