PREETPAL Vs. HUKAM CHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BRIEFLY , it has been alleged before us that Hukam Chand respondent, who claimed to be a tenant under Mallu son of Teja was never actually a tenant nor did he ever cultivate the land under him in any capacity. However the two colluded and the respondent moved an application before the Assistant Collector 2nd Grade, Dabwali on 22.04.1964 against the landlord Mallu claiming to be a tenant under him and for correction of the Khasra girdawari record of crops of 1961-62 to 1963-64 on land measuring 124 kanal 17 marla in Village Kaluana, Tehsil Dabwali. Accordingly, on the landlord not contesting the claim, the correction of the Khasra girdawari record from K 1961 to R 1964 was allowed on 14.05.1964. That within twenty days, the landlord Mallu moved an application in Form K-1 under section 14-A read with Section 9(1)(i) of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953 seeking the tenant's ejection. This was not contested by the tenant but he recorded a statement that he be ejected subject to his resettlement on surplus land. The Assistant Collector hearing the matter allowed the ejectment application on 14.07.1964 ejecting the respondent Hukam Chand from 123 kanal 10 marla land. Thereafter, the respondent was allotted 128 kanal from the surplus land pool and possession was delivered on 14.06.1965 and Allotment Certificate was issued in Form K-6 on 04.02.1967. Petitioner claims that this allotment is fraudulent and deserves to be cancelled.

(2.) ARGUMENTS of both sides were carefully heard on 18.03.2009. Counsel for the petitioner painted a picture of fraud and collusion between the respondent; the land owner Mallu, and the revenue authorities to deprive the State of much needed surplus land that could be used to resettle genuine people in need of land. He reiterated the grounds of the petition saying that the respondent first filed an application before the Assistant Collector claiming to be an old tenant and this was conceded by Mellu the landlord. The revenue authorities accepted the request. According to the petitioner, the fraud is proved by the fact that twenty days thereafter, the landlord Mallu, in turn filed an eviction application before the revenue officer. The tenant now did not contest but while conceding the claim of the landlord stated also that he may be evicted subject to his resettlement on surplus land. This was allowed and the tenant was duly ejected with the order that he would be accommodated on surplus land. Thereafter, the respondent was issued a certificate of allotment in Form K-6 over some surplus land. The counsel also pointed out that the figures of area from which tenant was ejected and those of surplus area allotted to him did not match and field numbers in From K-6 did not have any correlation with the allotment in roznamacha diary maintained by the patwari implying collusion with the revenue staff. Thus the fraud was well established and only this court had the authority to set aside the wrong committed.

(3.) COUNSEL for respondent No. 1 in his arguments stated that there is no basis for fraud and that the fraud is not proved because the tenant gave a statement that he may be evicted subject to resettlement on surplus land. Mallu was not present before this court to defend himself; hence no action could be taken prejudicial to his interests in his absence. Moreover, there has to be proper evidence, to establish a fraud. He challenged the locus of the petitioner and pointed out that the State only was competent to see if it was aggrieved. He alleged that the petitioner is involved in some other litigation with the respondent and is using this issue to attack him.