PRITAM SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision petition has been filed under section 14 of the Nazool Lands (Transfer) Rules 1956 against the order dated 12.7.2005 of Commissioner, Jalandhar and order dated 1.10.2003 of the Collector Kapurthala.

(2.) BRIEF facts of the case are that the Petitioner (Pritam Singh) was allotted Nazool land measuring 107 Kanals 11 Marlas, situated in Village Bhilan, Tehsil and District Kapurthala, vide order dated 1.6.1968. During consolidation operations, the land was reduced to 51 Kanals 11 Marlas. Thereafter, it was alleged that the allottee (Pritam Singh) transferred the land in question, to different persons i.e. to Resham Singh son of Amrik Singh (24 Marlas) and to Darshan Singh so of Jit Singh of Village Jhal Thikriwal (27 Kanals 11 Marlas) in violation of the Nazool Land Transfer Rules, 1956. Accordingly, the petitioner (Pritam Singh) was served with a Show Cause Notice dated 23.6.2003 to which the petitioner submitted his reply on 9.7.2003 denying any agreement with the above mentioned persons and submitted that Girdawari has been done in their names in collusion with revenue official and that a civil suit has been filed by him for possession. The Collector, Kapurthala, found the said explanation unsatisfactory and ordered resumption of the land in dispute, in the name of the State, vide dated 1.10.2003. The petitioner (Petitioner Singh) filed an appeal before the Commissioner, Jalandhar Division, Jalandhar mainly on the grounds that no opportunity was afforded to the petitioner (Pritam Singh) to explain his case before cancelling the allotment, that the petitioner did not execute any agreement, that the Nazool Land once allotted can not be resumed, and that the petitioner was in possession of suit land at the spot. The Commissioner came to the conclusion that the Collector has passed a detailed speaking order. Both Resham Singh and Darshan Singh stated that they already entered into agreements for the transfer of land with the petitioner. The civil suit is alleged to have been filed in 1999 and the latest position has not been disclosed by the petitioner. The petitioner admitted that the possession of the land in dispute is with Resham Singh and Darshan Singh. The Commissioner, therefore, found no merit in the appeal and dismissed the same vide order dated 12.7.2005. Hence, the present revision petition.

(3.) ON the other hand the Senior State Counsel argued that the petitioner has sold the land to Resham Singh son of Amrik Singh and Darshan Singh son of Jit Singh both residents of Village Jhal Thikriwal and have thus violated the conditions of allotment. The counsel further argued that a proper show cause notice was issued to Pritam Singh and land was resumed considering the reply of Pritam Singh which was rejected by the Commissioner being without any merit.