LAWS(P&H)-1988-2-61

ANOKH SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

Decided On February 11, 1988
ANOKH SINGH Appellant
V/S
STATE OF PUNJAB Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a revision petition by Anokh Singh and others against the order of Commissioner, Ferozepur Division, Ferozepur, dated 8.9.1986. whereby he rejected the appeal of the petitioners against the order of Collector Agarian, Ferozepur, dated 18.7.1962 and that of the Special Collector Agrarian, District Ferozepur headquarters at Fazilka dated 14.8.1984.

(2.) The brief facts leading to this revision petition are that Collector Agrarian, Ferozepur, vide his order dated 18.7.1962 declared 148 Standard Acres & 5-3/4 units of land belonging to Mukhtiar Singh landowner as surplus, after allowing 30 Standard Acres as permissible acres of the landowner and 130 Standard Acres and 10 units of land as tenant's permissible area, under the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act. On an application by the landowner, the Collector revised the Annexures of surplus area and reviewed the earlier order dated 18.7.1952 Special Collector Agrarian, District Ferozepur at Fazilka separated the surplus area of the landlord in village Dilla Ram measuring Marla 193 Kanals and 13 Marlas from the joint Khata on 14.8.1984.

(3.) The contention of the petitioners is that the land was sold by Mukhtiar Singh (respondent No. 2) to Nathu Ram and it was purchased by the present petitioners from Nathu Ram. They further contend that Nathu Ram, the vendee, remained in cultivating possession of the land since 1957 when he had purchased the same from Mukhtiar Singh etc and he had applied to the authorities for exemption from utilising the land purchased by him, under the Government Instructions; that exemption was granted to him vide order dated 6.10.1954; that in 1983 a notice under section 9(1) of the Punjab Land Reforms Act was issued, but the same was withdrawn; that the order dated, 14.8.1984 under section 13 of the Punjab Land Reforms Act was passed without giving an opportunity that the learned Commissioner has failed to consider the application for the condensation of delay filed under section 5 of the Limitation Act.