KRISHAN Vs. COLLECTOR AGRARIAN REFORMS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) On their application under Section 4 of the Utilization of Surplus Area Scheme, 1960, the petitioners Shri Krishan and Ram Dhari, were allotted five standard acres of land each in their village Dev Rarh by the Prescribed Authority (Naib-Tehsildar Agrarian), Jind (respondent No. 2), on 2nd March, 1965. As these orders had not been challenged by any one for more than 30 days, on 26th April, 1965, the petitioner Shri Krishan was granted the certificate (annexure C) in form 5 describing the particular fields that had been allotted to him. Similar certificate (annexure D) was granted to the other petitioner Ram Dhari on the same day. The fields allotted to the petitioners happened to be out of the area which was found to be surplus in the hands of a big owner of their village, Abhe Ram respondent No. 3. On 28th May, 1965, he applied to the Collector (Agrarian Reforms), Jind, vide his application (annexure E) for cancelling the allotment of land made to the petitioners on the plea that the allotment of surplus land had been procured by the petitioners by practicing fraud on the authorities and in league with the Patwari and other officials of the revenue department who had made alterations in the Khasra Girdawari against facts. It appears that similar objection was taken by Abhe Ram respondent to the allotment of land to one Kanhaya. On 2nd June, 1965, the Collector (Agrarian Reforms) visited the petitioners' village, and finding that Kanhaya was not eligible for allotment directed that his name be struck off from the list of eligible tenants. Subsequently, on 2nd June, 1965, when he took up Abhe Ram's complaint against the petitioner, he could not come to a definite finding and recorded the following order, which forms Annexure H to the petition :-

(2.) It, however, appears that subsequently the Collector could not himself visit the village Dev Rarh to make the necessary enquiry and he, accordingly, deputed the Block Development and Panchayat Officer to enquire into the validity of the allotment made in favour of the present petitioners and Ujala. On 8th June, 1965, the Block Development Officer and Panchayat Officer, Jind, submitted his report (annexure I), wherein he stated that as a result of confidential enquiries made by him he had found that Ram Dhari was running a dhaba at Calcutta about two or three years back and he was jointly cultivating his land with his father, while Siri Kishan's father, who is the uncle of Ram Dhari, also owned about 35 Bighas of land, and Siri Kishan also jointly cultivated this land with his father. Acting upon this report, the Collector (Agrarian Reforms) respondent No. 2 by his order, dated 9th June, 1965 (annexure G), directed that the names of both the petitioners Siri Kishan and Ram Dhari be struck off from the list of eligible tenants. The petitioners have now approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution for a writ of certiorari quashing this order on the pleas :-

(3.) No return to the petition has been furnished either by the authorities or by Abhe Ram respondent No. 3. Shri Tirath Singh, appearing on behalf of Abhe Ram, however, attempted to defend the impugned order on the plea that the original allotment was obtained by the petitioners by practising fraud on the authorities with the assistance of the Patwari and other revenue officials, and that the petitioners were not entitled to any relief from this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution in they had not exhausted the remedies available to them under the Pepsu Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act,1955. In this connection, he has referred to the recent decisions of their Lordships of the Supreme Court in A.V. Venkateswaran, Collector of Customs v. Ram Chand Sobhraj Wadhwani and another, 1961 AIR(SC) 1506 Thansingh Nathmal and others v. The Superintendent of Taxes, Dhubri and others, 1964 AIR(SC) 1419 and the British India Steam Navitgation Co. Ltd. v. Jasjit Singh, Addl. Collector of Customs, Calcutta and others, 1964 AIR(SC) 1451 The rule is well-established that though the existence of an alternative remedy is not an absolute bar to the making of an order under Article 226 of the Constitution, ordinarily the Court will not entertain a petition for writ where the petitioner has an alternative remedy which without being unduly onerous provides an equally efficacious remedy. There is, however, no occasion for applying this rule to the instant case as I am not satisfied that the petitioners had any adequate or efficacious remedy against the impugned order. As has been observed earlier, the impugned order was made by the Collector not in exercise of his appellate jurisdiction or on appeal having been preferred to him, but merely on an application by one Abhe Ram (respondent No. 3). Counsel for this respondent has not been able to indicate under what provision of law the Collector could make the impugned order. He had no general power to review or revise the order passed by the Prescribed Authority under Section 4 of the Utilization of Surplus Area Scheme, 1960. Thus, he acted clearly without jurisdiction, and in these circumstances, there is no occasion for refusing to entertain the petition under Article 226 of the Constitution on the plea that the petitioners had not exhausted the remedy available to them.