PURAN SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By order, dated August 30, 1960, the surplus area of the petitioner was purported to be declared by the Collector. Subsequently the petitioner filed a civil suit for permanent injunction restraining the State of Punjab from dispossessing the petitioner (plaintiff in the suit) for causing him to be dispossessed from the land measuring 266 bighas 16 biswas comprised in the khasra numbers in question (detailed in the suit and the decree) situate in village Mandaur, tehsil Nabha, district Patiala. It is an admitted fact (vide paragraph 3 of the pleadings) that the petitioner served notice under Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure on the State before filing the suit, and that even after service of the summons of the suit, the defendant-State contested the same on various pleas. The suit was decreed (after contest) by the Subordinate Judge First Class, Patiala on October 31, 1967. Annexure P. 1 is copy of the decree. The factum of the decree in question having been passed is not disputed. It is also the common case of the parties that the State of Punjab did not prefer any appeal against the above mentioned decree of the trial Court. By the said decree passed against the State of Punjab, the defendant-respondent was restrained from dispossessing the plaintiff from the land in dispute which had been declared surplus under order of the Collector, Agrarian, Nabha, dated August 30, 1960. Notwithstanding the said decree, the Collector Agrarian issued the impugned notice Annexure P. 2, dated August 9, 1974, to the petitioner under Sub-section (1) of Section 9 of the Punjab Land Reforms Act, 1972 , ordering him to deliver possession of the land in dispute to the Tehsildar/Naib Tehsildar, Nabha, or to his authorised representative within ten days of the service of the order. It was at that stage that the extra-ordinary jurisdiction of this Court was invoked by the petitioner vide the present writ petition on August 19, 1974, to quash and annual by a writ of certiorari or other appropriate writ, order or direction the impugned order (Annexure P. 2) of the Collector.

(2.) After service of notice of motion, adjournment was sought by the Government twice after which it was represented to us on October 11, 1974, that Shri Bhupinder Singh Malik, P.C.S., Collector Agrarian Reforms, Nabha, had deliberately not accepted the decree of the Subordinate Judge as he understood that he was entitled to ignore the decree under Section 32-DD(b) of the Pepsu Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1955, and further thought that Section 47 of the said Act barred the jurisdiction of the Civil Court to pass the decree. In paragraph 7 of his affidavit, dated October 9, 1974, Shri Malik stated that the order passed by the Subordinate Judge on October 31, 1967, had not been accepted by him as the Subordinate Judge was not authorised to pass any decree after the commencement of the tenancy law under Section 47 of the aforesaid Pepsu Act. We thought that the stand taken by the Collector, prima facie, showed that he was deliberately disobeying the binding decree of the Civil Court. We, therefore, passed an order on October 11, 1974, directing Shri Bhupinder Singh Malik, aforesaid to appear before us in person, and further ordered that the Government should file a detailed written statement admitting or denying precisely the various allegations made in the writ petition.

(3.) In pursuance of that order Shri Bhupinder Singh Malik, has appeared before us in person today. He is respondent No. 2 in the writ petition. He has filed an additional reply in writing, dated October 23, 1974, wherein he has reiterated his position and has averred that the decree in question had been obtained by the petitioner after the coming into force of the Pepsu Act, and several years after the declaration of his surplus area. He has stated that he passed the impugned order (Annexure P. 2) under the bona fide belief that the decree of the Civil Court was not binding on the Government. In the end he has submitted that he had no intention or even a desire to disobey the decree in question or any order passed by the Civil Court, and has prayed that if the High Court so directs he would be prepared to reopen the matter immediately and give effect to the direction of the Civil Court.