GURCHARAN SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE question that arises for consideration in this petition filed for quashing of the orders dated 16.7.1998, 30.6.1999 and 26.10.1999 passed by the District Collector, Ferozepur (respondent No. 3), the Commissioner, Ferozepur Division, Ferozepur (respondent No. 2) and the Financial Commissioner (Revenue), Punjab respectively is as to whether the petitioners can retain possession of the land allotted to them under the East Punjab Utilization of Lands Act, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') after the expiry of the statutory period stipulated in Sections 5 and 7 thereof.

(2.) BRIEFLY stated, the facts necessary for deciding the question noted hereinbefore are that possession of the land measuring 302 Kanals bearing Khasra Nos. 16M/5/3(0-9), 6(12-4), 15/2(2-12), 16/1(3-0), 25/2(3-8), 17M/1/1(2-13), 2/2(3-18), 6/2(4-0), 7/1(4-0), 8(8-0), 10(8-0), 11(8-0), 12(8- 0), 13(8-0), 17M/14(8-0), 15(8-0), 16(8-0), 17(8-0), 18(8-0), 19(8-0), 20(8- 0), 21(7-11), 23(50-8) 26M/1(8-0), 2(8-0), 3 Min Sharak (4-0), 9(4-0), 27M/5/2/3(8-16), 6(7-4), situated in Village Pandori Kharttarian, Tehsil Zira which belonged to the predecessor-in-interest of respondents No. 4 to 55 was taken by respondent No. 3 on the ground that the same was lying uncultivated for more than six crops. Out of that, 73 Kanals 10 Marlas of land was allotted to Santa Singh, predecessor-in-interest of petitioners No. 1 and 2, and 74 Kanals 7 Marlas of land were allotted to Gurdial Singh son of Jamna Singh in 1963. Since 1964, petitioner No. 3-Nachhatar Singh is said to have been cultivating the land which was allotted to Gurdial Singh. In 1995, the private respondents filed an application under Section 7 of the Act for return of possession of the land belonging to their predecessors. Respondent No. 3 gave notice of the said application to the petitioners and after hearing the parties, he passed order dated 16.7.1998 (Annexure P.3) by which he directed the eviction of the petitioners from the land in dispute and transfer of possession thereof to the private respondents. The relevant extract of that order is reproduced below :

(3.) FEELING dissatisfied with the orders passed by respondents No. 3 and 2, the petitioners invoked the revisional jurisdiction of the State Government but they could not convince the Financial Commissioner, Revenue, Punjab that they have the right to retain possession of the land. He dismissed the revision petition by a comprehensive and well reasoned order passed on 26.10.1999 (2000(2) PLJ 189). In paragraph 6 of that order the Financial Commissioner dealt with the petitioners' contention that they cannot be asked to vacate the possession because no lease deed was executed limiting their right to retain possession for 20 years and negatived the same by observing as under :-