Dismissed

Harpreetinder Singh v. State of Punjab and Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC1 Dec 2014CWP/7092/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single Judge of the Punjab and Haryana High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging orders declaring land surplus. The court found the proceedings were concluded in 1976, the land was sold by the time of the petition, and the petitioner had never selected his permissible area, rendering the writ petition devoid of merit.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was dismissed with no order as to costs.

Harpreetinder Singh Vs State of Punjab and Ors. — Land Acquisition | Punjab & Haryana HC (2014)

¶1

In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, at Chandigarh

¶2

Civil Writ Petition No. 7092 of 2009

¶3

Date of Decision: 1.12.2014

Harpreetinder Singh

... Petitioner(s)

Versus

State of Punjab and Others

¶8

... Respondent(s)

¶9

CORAM: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajan Gupta.

¶10

Present: Mr. M.L.Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner(s).

¶11

Mr. V. Ram Swaroop, Additional Advocate General, Punjab for respondents No.1 to 4.

¶12

Ms. Sonia G. Singh, Advocate for respondents No. 8 to 12.

¶13

Rajan Gupta, J.

¶14

Petitioner has impugned orders (Annexures P5 to P7) passed by Collector, Sub Division, Barnala, Commissioner, Patiala Division, Patiala and Financial Commissioner (Animal Husbandry), Punjab, respectively.

¶15

Counsel for the petitioner has assailed the orders on the ground that father of the petitioner, who was land owner, was not heard before impugned orders were passed. His father died on 30.8.1988. Thereafter, his wife was impleaded as a party, who also expired on 21.9.2003. Impugned orders are arbitrary and illegal, therefore, deserve to be set aside.

¶16

Plea has vehemently been opposed by counsel representing the respondents. State counsel has referred to reply filed by way of

¶17

DEEPAK KUMAR BHARDWAJ 2014.12.10 13:34 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document

¶18

Civil Writ Petition No. 7092 of 2009

¶19

¶20

affidavit of Neeraj Kumar, Sub Division Magistrate-cum-Collector Agrarian, Sub Division Tapa, District Barnala. According to him, petitioner has tried to mislead this court. Father of the petitioner was duly served during the proceedings. He was proceeded ex parte on 20.5.1976. Ultimately, order regarding declaration of specific khasra numbers as surplus was made absolute on 17.6.1976. Thereafter, warrant of possession (Annexure R2) was issued on 29.6.1976. Order dated 20.5.1976 was never challenged by the petitioner. According to him, proceedings have now culminated. Thus, there is no ground to interfere at this stage.

¶21

Counsel representing private respondents has submitted that the specific khasra numbers have been sold to subsequent purchasers who are in possession of the land. Thus, pleas raised by the petitioners are untenable or unacceptable.

¶22

I have heard counsel for the parties.

¶23

It appears that when the proceedings for declaring land of the petitioner surplus were initiated, notice was duly served upon father of the Petitioner, who appended his signatures on the notice. Despite service, he did not appear. Ex parte proceedings were initiated against him on 20.5.1976. Petitioner had a choice to select a specific khasra number. As he failed to appear, specific portion of the land measuring 139 kanals out of total holding of 380 kanals was declared surplus. Lateron, revision petition was filed by Kuldeepinder Singh, father of the petitioner, before the Financial Commissioner. Vide his order dated 3.7.1981, Financial Commissioner remanded the case directing that

¶24

DEEPAK KUMAR BHARDWAJ 2014.12.10 13:34 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document

¶25

Civil Writ Petition No. 7092 of 2009

¶26

¶27

owner should be given an opportunity to select his permissible area. At this stage, Kuldeepinder Singh gave a list of khasra numbers which he wanted to be declared surplus. The Collector, however, found that two of the khasra numbers given in the list did not exist while others had been sold by him after the appointed day. Vide his order dated 31.8.1984, Collector Agrarian declared 139 kanals 16 marlas of land as surplus by exercising his own choice. This order was unsuccessfully challenged before the appellate authority. A revision petition, preferred before the Financial Commissioner, was dismissed in default. On a writ petition being filed before this court, revision petition was restored. Financial Commissioner, thereafter, heard the matter. However, plea of the petitioner was rejected. Said order has been impugned in this petition.

¶28

I find no infirmity with the orders. It is evident that petitioner is merely trying to linger on the proceedings. It is evident that petitioner has sold some land to various vendees after the appointed day. Petitioner never made any selection of permissible area. Same area was determined by the authority when proceedings were initiated. He never made any selection of permissible area at that time. Only after remand order dated 3.2.1983 was passed by Financial Commissioner, he submitted a list of permissible area. It was, however, found that some of the khasra numbers did not exist and others had been sold out.

¶29

I find no ground to interfere in writ jurisdiction. At the time of issuance of notice of motion, petitioner made a statement that he did not pose a challenge to the order declaring the land surplus. However, fragmentation thereof may be prevented. It appears that petitioner has

¶30

DEEPAK KUMAR BHARDWAJ 2014.12.10 13:34 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document

¶31

Civil Writ Petition No. 7092 of 2009

¶32

¶33

merely tried to mislead the court. Specific khasra numbers have been sold to various vendees. It is not possible to start de novo proceedings at this stage. Besides, there is no merit in plea of petitioner that his father was never given an opportunity to select permissible area. According to record, notice was served upon his father but he failed to appear. Proceedings were culminated in June, 1976 while his father died in the year 1988. Prior to that he filed a revision petition before the Financial Commissioner wherein remand order was passed. Petitioner had been afforded sufficient number of opportunities of being heard. His plea that impugned orders are arbitrary, is misplaced. I find no merit in this petition.

¶34

Dismissed.

¶35

(Rajan Gupta) Judge

¶36

December 1, 2014 “DK”

¶37

DEEPAK KUMAR BHARDWAJ 2014.12.10 13:34 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document

Harpreetinder Singh v. State of Punjab and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Harpreetinder Singh v. State of Punjab and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Surjan Singh Chatha Vs Financial Commissioner, Revenue, Punjab & Ors.

Ved Pal Vs Financial Commissioner Haryana and Ors.

Kulwant Kaur and Ors. Vs District Collector and Ors.

Shriram City Union Finance Ltd. Vs Ash Mohammad

Sajjan Kumar & Ors. Vs Divisional Canal Officer & Ors.

Sher Singh Vs State of Haryana and Ors.