LAWS(P&H)-2005-7-63

GURMAIL SINGH Vs. PUNJAB STATE THRU. THE COLLECTOR

Decided On July 20, 2005
GURMAIL SINGH Appellant
V/S
Punjab State Thru. The Collector Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY filing this writ petition, petitioners have prayed that the orders, Annexures P-1, P-2 and P-4 be quashed and order Annexure P-3 be modified.

(2.) IT is an admitted fact that Ajmer Singh was a big landowner and under the provisions of Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953 (in short, 'the old Act'), proceedings were initiated to assess as to whether he owns any surplus land or not. His surplus area case was decided on 7.11.1969 by the Collector and land to the tune of 128 kanals was declared surplus. Even as per para 18 of written statement, filed in this writ petition, land declared surplus was not utilised and had not vested in the State till 15.12.1976. It is also an admitted fact that after enforcement of the Punjab Land Reforms Act, 1972 (in short, 'the new Act'), surplus area case of the big landowner i.e. Ajmer Singh was decided afresh and it was found, as a matter of fact, (vide order dated 15.12.1976) that area with family of the big landowner was not in excess, rather it was less than the permissible limit of land, which could have been retained by the owner. Petitioners purchased 96 kanals of land for Rs. 30,000/- on 24.6.1974. It is also proved on record that when surplus area case of landowner Ajmer Singh was taken up and decided again vide order, Annexure P-3, petitioners were not made a party. Petitioners came to know about these proceedings, against their predecessor-in-interest i.e. big landowner, only in 1975, when they received notice under Section 9(1) of the new Act, directing them to deliver possession of land measuring 24 kanals out of 96 kanals of land purchased by them. In response to the notice, they filed objections, by stating that 24 kanals of land purchased by them, in view of fresh determination of surplus case of the big landowner/their predecessor-in- interest would fall within the permissible limit of land to be retained by the big landowner and could not have been declared surplus. Matter was fixed before the Collector on 11.11.1975, one of the petitioners, who was pursuing the matter, due to illness, was admitted in some hospital and could not appear on the date. In view of that, objection application was dismissed in default. Petitioners moved application for restoration of their application on 19.11.1975, by stating that their absence on the date fixed was not intentional and was due to some unavoidable circumstances. Certificate issued by the doctor was also placed on record, wherein it was mentioned that Gurmail Singh, petitioner remained hospitalised from 8.11.1975 to 17.11.1975. Collector, vide order Annexure P-1, did not give them any opportunity to adduce evidence to prove their case, rather their application for restoration of objection application, was dismissed and it was further held that since they have purchased land after the appointed day under the new Act, as such, they were not entitled to claim any benefit. Petitioners' appeal was also dismissed on account of technicalities only, vide order dated 26.9.1977 (Annexure P-2). They also failed before respondent No. 1, when their revision petition was dismissed on 1.12.1983 (Annexure P-4).

(3.) PRAYER made has vehemently been opposed by counsel, appearing for the respondent-State. He, by referring to orders, Annexures P-1, P-2 and P-4, stated that fault lies with the petitioners as they have failed to put up appearance before the competent authority on the date fixed, as such, their objection petition was rightly dismissed. He further stated that since they had moved application for restoration of their objection petition beyond period of limitation, the same was also rightly rejected. Counsel further stated that out of 96 Kanals of land purchased by the petitioners, only 24 kanals was declared surplus, as they had purchased the same out of the surplus area already declared under the old act.