BIRBAL Vs. SURINDER MOHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a revision petition against the order dated 9.1.91, 1.12.92 and 3.8.93 passed by the Assistant Collector, 1st Grade, Hissar, Collector, Hissar and the Commissioner Hissar Division, Hissar respectively in the case of ejectment.

(2.) BRIEF facts of the case are that Smt. Lajwanti widow of Sh. Hari Chand, Keshwa Nand and Shiv Nand sons of Babu Ram and Sh. Kuldip Chand son of Perma Nand residents of village Shahabudin, District Hoshiarpur moved an application on Form K-1 under Section 9(1)(i) of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953 on 7.1.1986 before the Assistant Collector First Grade, Hisar seeking the eviction of the petitioner from the land measuring 100 Kanals. During the pendency of the said application, the said landowners transferred the land in dispute to the present respondent Surinder Mohan vide the collusive and consent civil Court decree dated 28.4.87. Consequent upon it, the respondent sought the amendment of the pending eviction application and moved an application for amendment on 9.8.88 which was allowed by the Assistant Collector on 22.8.88. Accordingly earlier ejectment application filed by the aforesaid landowner was substituted. After hearing the party and perusal of the record, the Assistant Collector vide his order dated 9.1.91 allowed the ejectment application subject to the resettlement of petitioner on 5 Standard Acres of surplus land and respondent would be entitled to take immediate possession of the rest of land from the petitioner.

(3.) NOW the petitioner has come up in appeal before me. Main contention of the petitioner is that the land in dispute having been transferred by the original owners to the present respondent through a consent Civil Court decree dated 28.4.87, the eviction application on Form K-1 filed by the original owners became infructuous and the respondent could not continue the same as law of succession did not apply to pending litigation. Moreover, the ejectment application filed by the original owners was itself irregular because the same was signed by the General Attorney and not the landowner himself. The solemn affirmation in Form K-1 about total holding of the landowner cannot be signed by the Attorney as it was a matter of personal knowledge. In support of this contention, case-law cited was 1967 PLJ-289 (Head-note a) and 1977 PLJ-532 (Head-note in para 5)