GINDER SINGH Vs. HARBANS LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) , FC - These are seven connected revision petitions under Section 14(4) of the Punjab Utilization of Lands Act, 1949 against the order dated 12.9.1995 passed by the Commissioner, Ferozepur Division, Ferozepur, whereby he dismissed the appeals of the petitioners in surplus area cases.

(2.) SINCE the facts in issue in all the cases are the same, these are disposed of with a single order, a copy of which will be placed in each file.

(3.) THE learned counsel for the petitioners urged that according to the provisions of the Act of 1949, it was the duty of the District Collector himself to ask for the person in possession to deliver the possession in favour of State and therefore none else except the District Collector has got the jurisdiction to initiate proceedings under this Act. In the present case, admittedly, there is no delegation of powers on behalf of District Collector in favour of the Sub-Divisional Officer (C) to initiate the proceedings under this Act. The counsel further argued that the respondents who allege themselves as owners of the land in dispute have nothing to do with the land as they themselves are stating that they are one of the co-sharers out of 200 co-sharers and therefore, the possession of the said land be delivered to them. Further, the counsel argued that during the pendency of application before the Sub-Divisional Collector, the case was fixed for evidence of the applicants/respondents but after several adjournments, the Sub-Divisional Collector in hot-haste manner without recording the evidence and without considering whether the applicants/respondents are owners or not, decided the application and passed the eviction order. The learned counsel for the petitioner further argued that as per the Government instructions No. 18/15/Rev-AR(4)-87/782, dated 9.2.1988 from the Financial Commissioner, Revenue, Punjab, with regard to eviction and taking of possession of lessees under East Punjab Land Utilization Act, 1949, it was instructed that the amendment of the said Act is under consideration and till then no possession can be taken from the lessees under this Act. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners further argued that the Commissioner in appeal has failed to give findings on all the above said facts and last seven lines of the order of the Commissioner are most important in which the Commissioner himself admitted that in the absence of any proof regarding delegation of his powers, the District Collector, Ferozepur, is required to pass a formal order regarding delivery of possession to the owners by specifying their names. Therefore, no order for delivering the possession can be passed without verifying the true owners of the land. Concluding the arguments, the learned counsel requested for the acceptance of the petitions.