GHASITU SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Ghasitu Singh petitioner had been allotted 64 kanals of land which was the surplus area of Smt. Durgi, vide order dated April 24, 1963. The possession of 40 kanals out of this land had been delivered to him on June 13, 1963 and an entry to this effect had been made in the register of the Patwari. The petitioner continued to cultivate this land and Khasra Girdawaris from Rabi 1962 to Rabi 1976 and the Jamabandi for the year 1973-74 supported this contention. The petitioner was shocked to know that the allotment of land in his favour had been cancelled by the Collector, Agrarian, Jagadhari, District ambala vide order dated June 19, 1972. The petitioner was not called by the Collector. He had not been heard and the order affecting his rights in property had been passed at his back. Apprehending that he will be evicted, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a writ of certiorari and quashing orders dated June 19, 1972, copy of which has been appended as Annexure P-7.

(2.) Mr. Gurdial Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner had been allotted land by a competent authority and he had been given the possession of the same on June 13, 1963, that he was in continuous possession of the same since then; and that without calling him and hearing him, the Collector has cancelled his allotment by a non-speaking and cryptic order. He has drawn my attention to Annexure P-7 which is the copy of the impugned order which shows that on spot verification and on the report of the Patwari, the Naib Tehsildar Agrarian, recommended that the petitioner has not been occupying the land, his allotment be cancelled. Without calling the petitioner and without hearing him, the Collector wrote down two words order "allotment cancelled". According to Gurdial Singh, the learned counsel, this order passed at the back of the petitioner affecting his rights is wholly illegal and liable to be quashed.

(3.) On the other hand, the learned State counsel has argued that the petitioner has not exhausted his statutory remedies under the statutes. The impugned order has been passed in violation of the principles of natural justice. It is an order wholly without jurisdiction and in those peculiar circumstances of the case the objection regarding the alternative remedy had to be rejected. The State counsel has further argued that the petitioner was not eligible for allotment and he had not in fact been cultivating the land and the same had been sold by his father.