AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
PANKAJ JAIN, J. (ORAL)
1 By way of present writ petition filed under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, petitioners pray for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari seeking quashing of the orders Annexures P-1, P-2 and P-3.
2 Kartar Singh, Balwant Singh, Wazir Singh and Avtar Singh-sons of Gurdial Singh were owners of land situated in three Districts i.e. Bathinda, Sangrur and Patiala. Balwant Singh was held to be big landowner vide order dated 17.12.1962 passed by the Special Collector under the Pepsu Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘PEPSU Act’). Surplus land was determined.
3 The order was challenged by Balwant Singh in appeal. Appeal was dismissed. Order was upheld vide order dated 12.07.1963.
4 In the revision preferred by Balwant Singh bearing ROR No.260 of 1963-1964, the revision was remanded back vide order dated 04.05.1966 with the following observation :-
“Petitioner has died and his property is to be inherited by his widow and his son. There will, therefore, be no surplus. The Special Collector may verify the fact and decide the case whether any surplus is left with the heirs.”
5 The aforesaid order was passed in view of the fact that Balwant Singh died on 21.07.1965. Pursuant to the aforesaid order, Special Collector vide order dated 06.12.1968 held that there was no surplus area of land with the heirs of Balwant Singh.
6 In the interregnum, not only the possession was taken from Balwant Singh but the land was utilized. The possession was transferred on 23.04.1965.
7 Relying upon the order passed by Special Collector dated 06.12.1968 declaring that the heirs of Balwant Singh have no surplus land in their hands, the heirs filed application under Section 144 CPC seeking restoration of the possession. Collector Agrarian, Rajpura ordered restoration of possession vide order dated 14.09.1970.
8 The allottees challenged order passed by Collector dated 14.09.1970 before Commissioner in appeal. The same was accepted vide order dated 09.11.1970. Order passed by Collector Agrarian, Rajpura was set aside. The heirs thereafter preferred revision petition before the Financial Commissioner. The same was also dismissed vide order dated 27.05.1971.
9 The landowners started another round of litigation by filing application under Section 144 CPC read with Rule 14 of the Utilization of Surplus Area Scheme, 1966 before District Collector Patiala. The same was rejected vide order dated 14.01.1975. The landowners thereafter preferred appeal. The same was dismissed by Commissioner vide order dated 15.01.1979. The order passed by the Commissioner was taken in revision before Financial Commissioner. The same also stands dismissed vide order dated 18.05.1983.
10 It is this order passed by Financial Commissioner (Appeals), Punjab, in ROR which has been challenged in the present writ petition.
11 In the considered opinion of this Court, the bedrock of the claim of the petitioners is the order passed by Collector, Agrarian dated 06.12.1968 (Annexure P-5), passed by Collector pursuant to order dated 04.05.1966 passed by Financial Commissioner whereby the land in the hands of heirs Balwant Singh was ordered to be determined afresh in view of death of Balwant Singh during the pendency of the revision petition.
12 The order of remand was passed oblivious of the fact that the land already stands vested in the State in terms of Section 32-E of the PEPSU Act after possession was taken. It stands utilized during the lifetime of Balwant Singh.
13 In view thereof, this Court finds that the petitioners have no right to seek restoration of possession relying upon the order passed by Collector, claiming that there was no surplus land in the hands of the petitioners. Legal heirs cannot claim inheritance after Balwant Singh already stood divested of surplus land during his lifetime.
14 Finding no merits in the present petition, the same is hereby dismissed.