BALDEV SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition has been moved by Baldev Singh, Bakhshish Singh, Karnail Singh and Bhag Singh sons of Bogha Singh under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India for issuance of an appropriate writ, order or direction quashing the impugned orders, Annexures P-1 to P-3 on the grounds as delineated in the petition.

(2.) THE facts giving rise to this petition are that Bogha Singh son of Mohna Singh, resident of Ramgarh, Tehsil Muktsar was a big land owner. His land measuring 6 standard acres 12 units was declared as surplus by the Collector, Ferozepur, on 4.1.1966. Aggrieved with this order, he preferred an appeal to the Commissioner, Jalandhar division, who set aside the order and remanded the case with a direction to scrutinize the matter and after giving an opportunity of being heard to all the concerned, decide the matter afresh with a further direction that the redeemed area under mortgage should be counted in the holding of the landowner and Form 'F' be issued. The appellant was directed by the learned Commissioner to appear before the Collector on 30.1.1968, but he did not appear before the Collector on the aforesaid date. After that, summons were issued for 24.2.1968. The same were received with a report that the landowner had gone to Bathinda. Again summons were issued for 12.3.1968 and 8.4.1968. Then he was summoned for 25.4.1968. The summons were received back with the report that the landowner has refused to accept the same. Ultimately, he was proceeded against ex parte. The learned Collector in the impugned order Annexure P-1 dated 23.5.1968 observed that the landowner had got 30 standard acres 7 units on 15.4.1953. Later on, he redeemed an area of 6 standard acres 15 units and his total holdings became 37 standard acres 6 units. After consolidation operations, the holdings increased to 38 standard acres 6 units. Ultimately, the land measuring 122 K 3M was declared as surplus. The petitioners carried appeal, Annexure P-2 to the Commissioner, Ferozepur Division, Ferozepur. He dismissed the same. The Financial Commissioner- respondent vide Annexure P-3 also dismissed the revision.

(3.) I have heard the learned counsel for the parties, besides perusing the impugned orders with due care and caution.