LPA No. 890 of 2009 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH LPA No. 890 of 2009 Date of Decision: 3.12.2009 Surgyan ......Appellant Versus State of Haryana and others .......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JORA SINGH 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present: Shri Hemant Sarin, Advocate, for the appellant. Shri Gagandeep Wasu, Senior DAG, Haryana, for for respondent Nos. 1 to 4. HEMANT GUPTA, J. (Oral). The appellant is aggrieved against the order passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court on 30.5.2009, whereby his writ petition, challenging the order dated 3.3.2006 passed by the Collector cancelling the alltoment of 8 kanals of land in his favour; order in appeal dated 9.4.2007 and the order passed in revision by the Financial Commissioner on 25.3.2009, was dismissed. 8 kanals of land situated in village Bhondsi, was allotted to the appellant on 15.5.2004 being landless and a resident of village Rithoj. The allotment in favour of the appellant was challenged by respondent LPA No. 890 of 2009 [2] Nos. 5 to 7 by way of an appeal before the Collector. However, before the Collector, a statement was made on 9.1.2006 by the counsel for respondent Nos. 5 to 7 to withdraw their appeal. However, the learned Appellate Authority found that the allotment of land to a person belonging to other village is a secret arrangement and doubtful. Therefore, the appeal was accepted and the order of allotment was set aside. Such order was affirmed by the Commissioner and in revision by the Financial Commissioner. It could not be disputed by the learned counsel for the appellant that he is not a resident of village Bhondsi, where the land in question is situated and allotment was made, but resident of village Rithoj. Once the appellant is not resident of the village in which the land is situated, the allotment could not have been made in favour of the appellant. Though respondent Nos. 5 to 7 have made a statement to withdraw the appeal, but no order was passed by the learned Collector permitting the said respondents to withdraw the appeal. The appeal was not dismissed as withdrawn. Therefore, the Appellate Authority was seized of the appeal and could pass an order examining the legality of the order of allotment in favour of the present appellant. Learned counsel for the appellant has argued that the Collector has no jurisdiction to take action suo-motu in respect of the allotment made in favour of the appellant as it is the Financial Commissioner alone, who has been conferred with the power to take suo- motu action under Section 18 of the Haryana Ceiling on Land Holding Act, 1972 [ for short `the Act' ]. However, it is not a case of an action by LPA No. 890 of 2009 [3] the Collector suo-motu. There was an appeal filed before the Collector by respondent Nos. 5 to 7. The Collector has exercised the jurisdiction while entertaining such appeal. Though respondent Nos. 5 to 7 have made a statement of withdrawing their appeal, but the fact remains, that the order passed by the Collector has been affirmed by the Financial Commissioner, which shows that the Financial Commissioner has not found any illegality in the order passed by the Collector, cancelling the allotment made in favour of the present appellant. Learned counsel for the appellant states that both the villages i.e. village Bhondsi and village Rithoj, fall within the same revenue estate, and have a common Patwari, who is looking after the affairs of the said villages, therefore, allotment could not be cancelled for the reason, the appellant is resident of another village. Mere fact that one Patwari is looking after the revenue affairs of two villages, does not make the two villages as part of the same revenue estate. Village Bhondsi and Village Rithoj, are separate villages and being a resident of village Rithoj, the appellant cannot claim to be entitled to the allotment of the land situated in village Bhondsi. In fact, it is not disputed that allotment could be made only in favour of resident of the same village. Learned counsel for the appellant has further relied upon Hulas Raj Baij Nath v. Firm K.B. Bass and Co., AIR 1968 SC 111; R. Rathinavel Chettiar and another v. V. Sivaraman and others, (1999)4 Supreme Court Cases 89 and a Division Bench judgment of the Calcutta High Court reported as Rajesh Kumar and others v. Rajan and others, LPA No. 890 of 2009 [4] 2006(3) SLR 52, in support of the argument that once a statement has been made to withdraw an appeal or proceedings, the Court has no jurisdiction to continue with a lis and that the Court is bound to accept such request and dispose of the lis as withdrawn. However, the said judgments have no applicability to the facts of the present case. The surplus land vests with the State. The State is a custodian of the public property. It is not a lis between two private individuals, as was in the three cases referred to above, by the learned counsel for the appellant. As a custodian of the public property, the Collector, was duty bound to examine the legality of the allotment made in favour of the appellant. Therefore, we do not find that the judgments referred to by the learned counsel for the appellant have any applicability in the facts of the present case. Consequently, we do not find any patent illegality or irregularity in the impugned order, which may warrant interference by this Court in the present Letters Patent Appeal. Dismissed. [ HEMANT GUPTA ] JUDGE [ JORA SINGH ] JUDGE 03-12-2009 ds