MANJIT KAUR Vs. FINANCIAL COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This order of mine shall dispose of two aforementioned cases i.e. one contempt petition and one writ petition. In the amended writ petition, challenge is to the orders dated 11.09.2012 (Annexure P-10) and 18.09.2012 (Annexure P-11), whereby vide order dated 18.09.2012 ROR No.863 of 2009, has been dismissed.

(2.) Mr. Som Nath Saini, learned counsel appearing on behalf of petitioners submits that for the last 30 years, land measuring 25 kanals 10 marlas, situated in revenue estate of Village Rod Majri, Tehsil Samrala, District Ludhiana was in cultivation and in possession of the petitioner and had been paying rent and occupation charges to the Government. Vide Annexure P-1 dated 04.12000, private respondent got allotted land in question in the name of Ujjagar Singh against claim of 1-12 acres in lieu of the land allotted earlier in District Fatehgarh Sahib. The land in question is Chahi and standard value is 13 anna per acre and its valuation comes to 3 standard acres-3 units but the same has been allotted at the claim of 1-12 standard acre. The petitioners filed an appeal against the aforementioned allotment before the Sales Commissioner but the same was dismissed on 26.11.2002 (Annexure P-2).The aforementioned order was assailed before the Chief Sales Commissioner but the same also met with the same fate vide order dated 005.2003 (Annexure P-3). Civil suit challenging the allotment and seeking injunction was also filed where there is interim injunction restraining the respondents not to forcibly interfere had been granted. However, vide judgment dated 204.2009 (Annexure P-4), the same was dismissed. The respondents moved an application for the delivery of the possession of the allotted land but the same was refused. Appeal of the respondents vide order dated 13.12016 (Annexure P-5) was also rejected by the Chief Sales Commissioner. However, the matter was taken up before the Divisional Commissioner, who remanded the matter to Tehsildar (Sales) Samrala with the direction that the application of the respondents be decided afresh, if any, after following the due process of law. Copy of the same is at Annexure P-6. It is the said remand matter which was assailed by the petitioner by filing the revision but the same was dismissed. Though, there was interim order on 03.12009. Application for amendment of the revision petition was sought but the same was also dismissed. In the meantime, warrant of possession dated 17.11.2009 (Annexure R-3/6) was shown to have been issued. Information was obtained under RTI Act, which shows proceedings qua issuance of warrant of possession were taken on the orders of Tehsildar-Sales, Samrala. Initially, writ petition was filed and this Court vide order dated 09.04.2010 by noticing the contention had stayed the dispossession which reads thus:-

(3.) The Court found that the petitioner had been ejected in the absence of any order of ejectment, in essence, proceedings were initiated by the respondents on the application of the respondents without following due procedure of law. Even Civil Court also while deciding one of the issue held that possession cannot be taken except in due course of law. In fact, original allotment of the petitioner was cancelled way back in the year 1967. The respondent namely Ujjagar Singh was alive till 1970. In view of Rules 67-A of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Rules, 1955, application in 1993 was not entertain able as it was to be submitted on or before 31.12.196 All these factors have not been taken into consideration by the Commissioner in the impugned orders, and therefore, orders are liable to be set aside. Valuation report, as already indicated above, taken from Jalandhar or from land in Ludhiana has gone unexplained and thus, urges this Court for setting aside the orders as the petitioner has locus standi to challenge the allotment and as well as for protecting the possession. No person can be dispossessed except in due course of law.