GANDA SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By order dated May 18, 1961 Shri Aridalan Singh, P.C.S. Assistant Collector 1st Grade, Bhiwani directed that Ganda Singh being a tenant of small landowners was liable to ejectment from the disputed land but directed that he would not be dispossessed between the 1st of May and the 15th of June, 1961. He also ordered that from the remaining five standard acres the petitioner would not be liable to be dispossessed till he was accommodated to this extent on some surplus area. Copy of that order of the Assistant Collector is annexure 'A' to the writ petition. The petitioner does not in any manner question the correctness of this order. His case as brought out in the writ petition was that suddenly he was sought to be ejected from the remaining five standard acres of land from which he was not liable to ejectment till he was allotted land to this extent in some surplus area and that on inquiry he came to know that this was by virtue of an order passed by the Assistant Collector, Bhiwani on 9-9-1964. Without being able to obtain any copy of the order dated 9-9-1964 the petitioner preferred an appeal against it to the Collector, Hissar. The appellate authority dismissed the petitioners' appeal by order dated October 31, 1964 of which copy is annexure 'C' to the writ petition on the short ground that no copy of the alleged order dated 9-9-1964 had been produced before him in spite of an opportunity having been granted to the petitioner to do so and on the further ground that the landowners were denying any such order having been passed as was alleged by the petitioner. Against the said appellate order the petitioner filed a revision petition in the Court of Commissioner, Ambala Division, which was admitted. The petitioner was granted ex parte stay of dispossession from the five standard acres of land in question. The revisional authority called for the record of the case and after perusing the same vacated the ex parte stay order on 10th February, 1965. After vacating the stay order the Commissioner adjourned the hearing of the revision petition. It was at that juncture that this writ petition was filed in April, 1965. The Motion Bench, while admitting the writ petition issued an interim order staying the dispossession of the petitioner on April 26, 1965. The petitioner has now filed a copy of order dated 9-9-1964 as annexure 'B' to the writ petition. The said order merely directs that possession of the new numbers of land which had been allotted in lieu of the old numbers may be given to Parma Nand, etc., the landowners and a report about compliance with that order may be sent up to the Assistant Collector by 5-10-1964. The above said order dated 9-9-1964, therefore, did not purport to say anything of the kind which was attributed to the Assistant Collector according to para 4 of the writ petition.

(2.) In reply to the writ petition, a detailed written statement has been filed on behalf of respondent Nos. 5 to 8. It has been stated in paragraph 3 thereof that the petitioner has already been allotted surplus area by the Naib-Tehsildar, Fatehabad in village Nagpur, Tehsil Fatehabad, District Hissar and that the petitioner had declined to accept the allotment chit and on May 14, 1964 the Patwari had reported to this effect to the Naib-Tehsildar. In the written statement it has been further averred that the Naib-Tehsildar Surplus Area and the Naib-Tehsildar Revenue personally visited village Nagpur on May 24, 1964 to deliver possession of the surplus area allotted to the petitioner but the latter failed to take possession of the same in spite of having been called upon to do so. Thereupon, as it is alleged in the written statement, the Assistant Collector 1st Grade, Bhiwani passed an order on 13-6-1964 for delivery of possession of the entire land and on 9-9-1964 the Assistant Collector, passed a further order that the possession of the Khasra Nos. in question allotted after consolidation be handed over. With the written statement the contesting respondents have filed annexure R.1 being copy of Form, K-6 Parchi of allotment to Ganda. Singh, petitioner giving detailed particulars of the land allotted to him showing the area in the ordinary and standard acres.

(3.) Shri Harbhagwan Singh, the learned counsel for the petitioner says that he has since ascertained from his client and that he is able to state that surplus land in lieu of the five standard acres in question had really and duly been allotted to him. He, however, maintains that he has not been able to get possession of the same so far as the party previously in possession of the allotted land is litigating about this. Section 9-A of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953 reads as follows :-