CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 4652 OF 1986 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. DATE OF DECISION October 29 , 2010 Parties Name Datar Singh and another ...APPELLANTS VERSUS The Government of Haryana and another ...RESPONDENTS PRESENT: Mrs. Abha Rathore, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr. Kamal Sehgal, Addl. A.G., Haryana; Mr. L.N.Verma, Advocate, for the private respondents. JASBIR SINGH, J. (oral) ORDER: This writ petition has been filed with a prayer to quash an order dated March 11, 1981 (Annexure P-9), vide which land was allotted to the private respondents, treating them as sitting tenants over the land declared surplus of a land owner. Petitioners came to this Court by stating that in fact they were the sitting tenants over the land in dispute and are in possession of the same since 1978 and further order of allotment was passed in favour of the private respondents without issuing any notice to the petitioners. Upon notice, reply has been filed, wherein it is stated that against the order under challenge, appeal is competent. At the time of CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 4652 OF 1986 -2- arguments, counsel for the petitioners has failed to contradict the averments made by the private respondents to that extent. So far as controversy as to whether the petitioners on the private respondents were the sitting tenants and/or who, as per provisions of 'Haryana Utilisation of Surplus Area Scheme, 1976', shall be entitled to the allotment of land is not necessary to be gone into at this stage. Both the parties are pressing their respective claims by raising disputed facts, which can be better decided by the appellate authority. There is nothing on record to show that the order under challenge was passed after giving notice to the petitioners. To the contrary, Shri Verma states that notice was not necessary at the time of allotment of surplus land because the land after declaration as surplus vests in the State Government. This Court cannot accept this argument because when it comes to allotment of land, inter se the tenants, who are claiming as sitting tenants, it was incumbent for the authorities to look into the revenue record and then pass order as to who was sitting over the land as tenants and to whom land should be allotted. To ascertain that, it was necessary to issue notice to those persons, who were sitting on the land, may be under any capacity. In view of facts, mentioned above, this writ petition is disposed of by allowing the petitioners to file an appeal. If any such appeal is filed within three weeks from today, the question of limitation shall not be raised by any of the parties. Dispossession of the petitioners shall also remain stayed for a period of three weeks from today subject to further orders to be passed by the appellate authority. ( Jasbir Singh ) Judge October 29, 2010. DKC