STATE OF HARYANA Vs. POLU RAM BHURA RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS judgment will dispose of 18 connected Letters Patent Appeals (L. P. As. 502, 510, 513, 518, 523, 533, 535, 539, 540, 545, 548, 550, 555, 556, 558, 577, 580 and 539 of 1974) against the judgment of a learned Single Judge of this Court, dated August 8. 1974, in each of the writ petitions from the decision of which the respective appeals have been preferred. The learned Judge allowed those writ petitions on the basis of his own earlier judgment in Baru Singh Malik v. The State of Haryana. 1973 Punj LJ 285. L. P, A 96 of 1973 against that judgment was dismissed in limine. Out of the appeals which have come up for hearing before us. L. P. As. 502, 545, 550 and 580 of 1974 are complete as regards service. No one has put in appearance on behalf of the writ petitioner-respondents in any of these cases. In L. P. As. 518, 548. 558 and 589 of 1974 some of the respondents are reported to have died. Others have been served. Out of those respondents in these four appeals who are alive and have been served, only respondent No. 1 in L. P. A. 518 of 1974 is represented by Mr. R, N. Aggarwal, Advocate, Respondents Nos. 1 to 13. 15 to 19, 21 to 66, 68 to 88. 90 to 101, 103 to 105. 107 to 179. 181 to 185, 187 to 192. 194 to 197, 199 to 211. 214 to 216, 218 to 307. 310 to 325 and 327 to 339 in L. P. A. 589 of 1974, are represented by Mr. R. P. Bali. Advocate in L. P. A. No. 589 of 1974. In L. P. As. Nos. 510. 513, 523, 533, 535, 539, 540, 555, 55g and 577 of 1974, some of the respondents have not been served. Mr. Nehra appears for respondents 12 and 13 in L. P. A. 523 of 1974. The other respondents who have been served in these appeals have not put in appearance. This judgment will be ex parte against the respondents who have not put in appearance despite service. The other respondents who have either not been served or whose legal representatives have not been brought on record shall be at liberty to apply for setting aside this judgment insofar as it concerns them if they choose to make an application for that purpose.

(2.) THE learned Advocate-General for the State of Haryana and the counsel for the writ petitioner-respondents who are present before us agree that the direction issued by the learned Single Judge to the State Government to refrain from making a levy of the betterment charges upon the writ petitioners (now respondents) till the finalisation of the schedule envisaged by Section 4 of the Punjab Betterment Charges and Acreage Act, 1952, may be set aside and for it may be substituted the direction which was given by a Division Bench of this Court in Civil Writ 2446 of 1974, Sheo Kumar v. The State of Haryana decided on 19-9-1974. Even otherwise we are of the considered view that on the allegations appearing in the respective writ petitions from which these appeals have arisen, the only order that can and should be issued to the State is the one that was given in the case of Sheo Kumar. C. W. No. 2446 of 1974. D.00 19-9-1974 (Punj and Har) (supra ). We dispose of all these appeals accordingly, that is by substituting for the direction issued by the learned Single Judge in the writ petitions in question the direction to the State to refrain from demanding any advance betterment charges from the writ petitioner-respondents under Section 5-A of the Act without issuing the requisite notification under Section 5-A (1) and without following the procedure prescribed in Rule 11-A of the Punjab Betterment Charges and Acreage Rates Rules. 1955 (as amended in 1959 ). The demand of advice payment of betterment charges which was impugned in the writ petitions, that is for 1973-74, is also quashed on the same ground. In the circumstances of the case we make no order as to costs in any of these appeals. <DJG> S.SANDHAWALIA, J.</DJG>

(3.) I agree. .