SARWAN SINGH Vs. AVTAR SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present revision petition under Section 18 of the Punjab Land Reforms Act, 1972 read with Section 84 of the Punjab Tenancy Act, 1887, has been preferred against the order dated 13.11.1995, passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Patiala Division Patiala, in a surplus area case.

(2.) THE brief facts of this case are, that, Nand Singh son of Kishan Singh r/o Village Chappa, Tehsil Barnala, District Sangrur, was a big landowner; and, an area measuring 4 Standard Acres and 11-3/4 Units, equivalent to 24 Bighas and 5 Biswas, was declared surplus with him, as per the order dated 10.4.1961, passed by the Collector (Agrarian) Sangrur, under the provisions of the Pepsu Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1955. The State had taken over possession of this land on 27.10.1974; and, this land was mutated in the name of the State Government vide mutation No. 4873 of Village Chappa, and this land was allotted to the eligible persons, including the petitioner-Sarwan Singh, under the provisions of the Punjab Utilization of Surplus Area Scheme, 1973. Against the declaration of surplus area, the landowner Nand Singh, and his heirs had agitated the matter before the various Revenue and Civil Courts. Balbir Singh son of Nand Singh, had agitated his case before the Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court by filing R.S.A. No. 1955 of 1978, which was dismissed vide order dated 25.2.1991 (1991 PLJ 395), passed by the Hon'ble Chief Justice of the Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court. The claim made in this appeal was to the effect : "suit for declaration to the effect that the order of Agrarian Collector, Barnala, defendant No. 2 dated 10.4.61, declaring 4 S. A. 11-3/4 units of land as surplus equivalent to 24 bighas 5 biswas comprised in khasra numbers 1360/7-5, 1361/5-0, 1362/4-10, 1364/4-10, situated in Village Chappa and the order of the Agrarian Collector Barnala, dated 19.8.74, ordering handing over the possession of land declared as surplus to State and the order of sanctioning of mutation No. 4973, in favour of State and order of allotment of the land declared surplus to defendants No. 3 to 11, are without jurisdiction, illegal, null and void, as such, are liable to be ignored and in consequence a suit for permanent injunction restraining defendants No. 1 and 2, from allotting land to defendants No. 3 to 11, and delivering possession thereof; and restraining defendants No. 3 to 11, from taking possession from the plaintifs." The operative part of the order passed by the Hon'ble High Court reads as follows :-