BALWANT RAI AND ANOTHER Vs. JAGMAL AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AMIN Lal, Respondent 2 and Ram Narain, his nephew, Respondent 3, jointly held land which was partitioned between them in 1957. As a result of the partition, the land in dispute came to the share of Amin Lal. The land in dispute measures 20 bighas and 17 bighas comprised in khasra numbers 324 and 909/195, situate in village Bazidpur Katianwali, Tahsil Fazilka, District Ferozepur. This land was being cultivated by Jagmal Singh Respondent 1 under Respondents 2 and 3 in 1956. On 9th July, 1958, the petitioners and his three, brothers sons of Amin Lal filed a suit against, their father Amin Lal for declaration that the plaintiffs were the owners and in possession of the respective lands mentioned in the plaint. This suit was decreed on 14th July, 1958, in view of the statement made by Amin Lal. It is thus evident that it was a consent decree. By means of this decree, field No. 324 measuring 13 bighas and 15 biswas fell to the share of Balwant Rai Petitioner No. 1 and field No. 909/195 fell to the share of Amar Singh Petitioner No. 2.

(2.) AS a result of consolidation proceedings, in lieu of field Nos. 324 and 909/195, which were being cultivated by Respondent No. 1, he was allotted 99 kanals and 6 marlas of land comprised in various killa numbers mentioned in paragraph 3 of the petition. On 2nd July, 1965, the tenant Jagmal Singh, Respondent No. 1, made an application for the purchase of the said land under section 18 of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953, hereinafter called the Act, to the Assistant Collector 1st Grade, Fazilka, Respondents 2 and 3 were made respondents to that application as the land was entered in their names in the revenue records. At that time, Ram Narain, Respondent 3, was a minor and was studying in a College. No guardian ad litem was appointed for him in the purchase application. In the written statement filed by Respondent 2, it was stated that he had transferred the land to the petitioners and they should be impleaded as respondents and that Ram Narain, Respondent 3 was a minor, but in spite of that statement, neither the petitioners were impleaded as parties, nor was any guardian appointed for Ram Narain. On 28th May, 1966, Balwant Rai made an application through Shri Gokal Chand Advocate that the petitioners along with their brother Ram Partap were necessary parties for the effective adjudication of the case as the property stood in their names. On this application, the following order was passed by the Assistant Collector 1st Grade, Ferozepur, Camp at Fazilka, on 2nd June, 1966 :

(3.) THE return to the writ petition has been filed by Respondent 1 who has contested the petition. In the return, a preliminary objection has been taken that the writ petition is belated as it has been filed after an expiry of about 14 months of the impugned order dated 7th October, 1966, and no explanation of delay has been given. The second objection raised is that alternative remedies under the Act have not been exhausted. I do not find any force in these preliminary objections. The petitioners were not parties to those proceedings and they could ignore the same, but as the respondents are acting upon those orders, necessity has arisen for them to get that order quashed. The petitioners had no right to pursue any remedies under the Act as they were not parties to the application. Therefore, the objection with regard to exhaustion of alternative remedies cannot prevail against them.