In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh [CASE NUMBER] Date of decision:24.9.2009 [ENTITY] and others Petitioners v. [ENTITY] and others Respondents Present: Mr. [ENTITY], Advocate for the petitioners. [ENTITY], J.
The writ petition under [SECTION] of the [ACT] has been filed seeking quashing of the order dated 2.3.1981 (Annexure-P.3) passed by the Collector, Faridabad (respondent No.2) and for directing the Collector, Palwal, now Collector, Faridabad, not to declare 29 Standard Acre and 1-3/unit as surplus land and not to allot the surplus land to the members of the scheduled castes of village Pengalthu, now Tehsil Hodal, District Faridabad because the land of the petitioners is already divided into four parts by judgment and decree dated 07.01.1971 (Annexures P-1 and P-2) passed by the learned Sub Judge Ist Class, Palwal.
The Collector (Agrarian), Palwal in the year 1960 had declared the land of [ENTITY] son of [ENTITY] who was a big 'biswadar' as surplus. [ENTITY] son of [ENTITY] was owner of 222 Kanals 7 Marlas of land. The surplus area vide order dated 28.8.1980 passed by the Prescribed Authority was allotted to [ENTITY] and others (respondents No.2 to 35) as recorded in the impugned order dated 2.3.1981 (Annexure-P.3). After the allotment, possession was given at the spot on 30.9.1980 to the allottees. Thereafter, [ENTITY] (petitioner No.2) and [ENTITY] (petitioner No.1) sons of [ENTITY] and [ENTITY] (since deceased) then minor through his next friend and eldest brother [ENTITY] (petitioner No.2) and now represented by his son [ENTITY] (petitioner No.3) and [ENTITY] son of [ENTITY] filed an appeal before the District Collector against the order dated 28.8.1980 passed by the Prescribed Authority, Palwal. It was contended by [ENTITY] (petitioner No.2) and others (petitioners No.1 and 3) as also [ENTITY] son of [ENTITY] that they at the time of allotment and giving possession were not given any notice. In fact, in pursuance of civil Court decree dated 7.1.1971 [ENTITY] (petitioner No.2) had become owner of the land besides he was an adult before 24.1.1971 i.e. the appointed date under the [ACT]. Therefore, one area of unit was liable to be separated. It was also contended that no notice was given to the petitioners in the year 1960 when the area of [ENTITY] was declared surplus. It was submitted that two units of [ENTITY] should have been given to them. In the revenue records, the ownership was recorded as that of the petitioners.
The District Collector, Faridabad in terms of order dated 02.03.1981 (Annexure P-3) considered the said contention and held that the land was declared surplus earlier under the [ACT] and if the appellants were not satisfied, they should have filed an appeal against it. The appeal that had been filed was only against the order of allotment. Therefore, at the time of allotment if the allotment authority had committed any wrong, they should have argued in this regard. However, the appellants had argued regarding declaration of surplus land in detail before the District Collector. It was also observed that according to [ACT] after declaration of surplus land after the appointed date the land vests in the Government and, therefore, no person becomes owner. Therefore, it was deemed proper that there was no need to give notice to those owners whose land was declared surplus. The plea regarding not entering the mutation in the name of Government, it was observed, was not so important that the allotment should have been cancelled. No objection was found correct regarding the allotment. Accordingly the appeal was dismissed.
It may be noticed that the order which is impugned in the present petition was passed on 2.3.1981 (Annexure-P.3) and now almost 28 years have lapsed. Besides, the possession of the land which was declared surplus was given at the spot on 30.9.1980. The pleadings as have been made in the petition are quite contrary to the orders dated 02.03.1981 (Annexure-P.3) as also in the Civil Court judgment dated 7.1.1971 (Annexure-P.1) and the decree dated 7.1.1971 (Annexure-P.2). In the writ petition it is pleaded that [ENTITY], [ENTITY] and [ENTITY] are sons of [ENTITY] whereas the civil Court judgment and decree (Annexures-P.1 and P.2) and the order dated 2.3.1981 (Annexure-P.3) show that [ENTITY] and [ENTITY] are sons of [ENTITY] and [ENTITY] is the son of [ENTITY]. Keeping in view the fact that the petition is highly belated and possession has also been given, no ground for interference in this case is made out at this stage. In [PRECEDENT], it was observed as follows:-
"It is not that there is any period of limitation for the Courts to exercise their powers under [SECTION] nor is it that there can never be a case where the Courts cannot interfere in a matter after the passage of a certain length of time. But it would be a sound and wise exercise of discretion for the Courts to refuse to exercise their extra ordinary powers under [SECTION] in the case of persons who do not approach it expeditiously for relief and who stand by and allow things to happen and then approach the Court to put forward stale claims and try to unsettle settled matters."
The reliance placed by the learned counsel for the petitioner on the case of Gurcharan Singh v. [ENTITY], 1990 (1) All India Land Laws Reporter 282 is not of much significance. The said case is that of the Financial Commissioner, Haryana wherein the land declared surplus had remained unutilized and in the meantime death of the land owner had taken place in 1976. Besides, another sale had been effected in 1979 which was ignored.
In the present case, it is not even shown that who is the land owner and as to whether [ENTITY] is the land owner or [ENTITY] is the land owner. Date of death of the land owner is not there. Therefore, even though judgment is that of the Financial Commissioner, it is clearly inapplicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case.
The writ petition is accordingly dismissed.
September 24, 2009. ([ENTITY]) Judge *hsp* NOTE: Whether to be referred to the Reporter or not:Yes/No