Jarnail Singh vs Financial Commissioner and others

Viney Mittal, J. (Oral)

The prayer made in the application for impleading the LRs'' of respondent No. 4, Harbans Singh, is allowed subject to all just exceptions.

The petitioner Jarnail Singh had been allotted some land treating him to be in cultivating possession thereof. The aforesaid allotment had been cancelled by the Sales Commissioner, Pathankot on 11.12.2001. It was found as a fact that the controversy with regard to the actual possession of Jarnail Singh was involved in RSA No. 2473 of 2000 before this Court. Consequently, an order was passed by the Sales Commissioner cancelling the allotment in favour of Jarnail Singh, leaving the question of reallotment open after the decision of the High Court in the said Regular Second Appeal.

Thereafter, an application was moved by Harbans Singh before the Financial Commissioner. It was brought to the notice of Financial Commissioner that the aforesaid RSA No. 2473 of 2000 stood finally disposed of vide judgment dated 7.8.2002 and it has been found as a fact that Jarnail Singh was not actual cultivating possession of the suit land. Therefore, he had no right to claim any allotment of the land in question. The aforesaid application filed by Harbans Singh was allowed by the Financial Commissioner vide order dated 3.2.2004. The aforesaid order has been impugned by Jarnail Singh through the present petition.

We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record of the case.

It is not in dispute that RSA 2473 of 2000 was filed by Jarnail Singh claiming that he was in actual physical possession of the suit land. However, contention raised by Jarnail Singh was rejected by this Court and aforesaid appeal was dismissed on 7.8.2002. In these circumstances, when a categorical finding of fact was recorded by the Court in Regular Second Appeal that Jarnail Singh was not in possession, then obviously, the Financial Commissioner was bound by the aforesaid judgment of this Court. Consequently, the allotment of Jarnail Singh, which had been made treating Jarnail Singh to be in possession of the suit property, was treated as illegal and liable to be cancelled. Consequently, the said allotment was cancelled. The matter was thereafter left to the discretion of the Tehsildar (Sales) to take further steps for the allotment of the land in accordance with law and as per the policy of the State Government.

The petitioner, Jarnail Singh, in these circumstances, cannot be heard to claim that he was still in possession of the suit land and, therefore, entitled to the allotment. He has lost upto this Court in the civil proceedings and, therefore, the writ petition claiming the same relief is not maintainable.

Dismissed.