RAN SINGH Vs. BALBIR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) VIRENDRA Nath, F.C. This revision petition has been filed against the order dated 20.3.96 of the Commissioner Hisar Division, vide which he set aside the order of the AC-I dated 11.10.62 in a purchase matter.

(2.) FACTS of the case are that the revision petitioner's father, namely Lakhmi Chand purchased the land in dispute under Section 18 of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953, vide orders dated 11.10.62, passed by the AC-I. Some time after that, some other ejected tenants were resettled on the same land, treating it as surplus land. The petitioners prayed for cancellation of orders passed in favour of resettled tenants as the land in question was not a part of the surplus area. The Collector Surplus Area vide order dated 7.10.70 cancelled the allotment made to resettled tenants, removed the land from surplus pool and ordered that some other land should be allotted to the concerned ejected tenants. Alternative land was allotted to them on 12.3.81, but they failed to take possession of the same. Thereafter revision petitioners made an application before AC-I requesting that the possession of land purchased by them should be delivered back to them, which request was accepted by the Asstt. Collector on 21.7.82. The Collector dismissed an appeal against the above orders of the AC on 24.8.82. The matter later reached the Financial Commissioner who vide his orders dated 5.6.85 allowed the ejected tenants one more opportunity for allotment of land from surplus pool and if they still refuse to take possession of land so allotted, they be ejected from the land purchased by the revision petitioners.

(3.) SOME years later, Balbir etc. the present respondents filed a revision petition before the Commissioner Hisar Division on 29.1.96 praying that they were landless persons of the village Kumharia and that they had been deprived of their right of allotment of surplus land because the respondents Ran Singh etc. sons of Lakhmi Chand had purchased the land in dispute from the landowners namely Sheo Nand and Har Lal in 1962 in a collusive manner and that Lakhmi Chand was not entitled to this purchase as a tenant because Lakhmi's sister was married to Har Lal, landowner. Sheo Nand and Har Lal, landowners from whom this land was purchased were real brothers.