C.W.P. No.100 of 1987 -1- ... IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No.100 of 1987 Date of Decision : 25.08.2010 Parminder Singh and another ......Petitioners Vs. State of Punjab and others ......Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI Present: Mr. K.G. Chaudhary, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr. S.S. Gill, DAG, Punjab, for respondents No.1 to 3. Mr. Arun Singla, Advocate, for respondents No.4 to 9. *** AJAY TEWARI, J.(Oral) This petition has been filed against the orders dated 27.11.1986 (Annexure P-1) and 27.04.1983 (Annexure P-2), whereby the allotment of the surplus land in favour of petitioners, was set aside. One Kesar Bharti, was admittedly holding excess land. By order dated 08.08.1980, 106 kanals 11 marlas land was declared surplus land. As per the case of the petitioners, they were sitting as tenant since 1975 and applied for allotment thereof in November/December 1980. Ultimately, the land was allotted to them. However, an appeal was filed by the predecessor-in-interest of the private respondents claiming that land was wrongly allotted to the C.W.P. No.100 of 1987 -2- ... petitioners and that they were land-less harijans and further that no public notice had been issued prior to the allotment and consequently, they had been prevented from applying for allotment. By Annexure P-2, the Additional Commissioner found that in fact, the land became available for allotment only on 02.05.1981 when mutation was sanctioned in favour of the Provincial Government. Thereafter, no public notice was issued. The Additional Commissioner also found that it was very strange that the petitioners had made an application for allotment in November/December 1980 even before the land had became available for allotment. Consequently, he set aside the allotment of the order in favour of the petitioners and ordered re-allotment after following due procedure. Petitioners challenged the same before the Financial Commissioner who also noticed that the petitioners were not entitled to any preferential allotment since they were not sitting as tenant on the appointed date viz., 24.01.1971. He also concurred with the reasoning of the Additional Commissioner and held that there was no public notice of availability of land. He, consequently, dismissed the revision petition. Learned counsel for the petitioners has argued that the signatures of one of the private respondents appeared on the mutation in favour of the government and that this showed that the availability of land was openly known in the entire village. He further argued that the actual allotment was made in favour of the petitioners on 25.05.1981 and between 02.05.1981 and 25.05.1981, the private respondents could have applied. C.W.P. No.100 of 1987 -3- ... Learned counsel for the private respondents has stated that the signatures of Chanan Singh on the mutation do not show that it was the same Chanan Singh and secondly, that the allotment was challenged by 5/6 persons and even if, in the worst case, one of the persons knew about the mutation in favour of the Government, the same could not take away the rights of the other applicants. It is not disputed that there was no public notice regarding availability of surplus land. In the circumstances, no fault can be found in the orders of the Financial Commissioner and the Additional Commissioner. Learned counsel for the petitioners has further argued that now the petitioners had been in possession of the land for almost 35 years and other that they are land-less persons. Therefore, it would not be in the interest of justice to set aside the allotment. In my considered opinion, the allotment, which was void at initio, cannot be cured for this reason. Consequently, this petition is dismissed. (AJAY TEWARI) JUDGE 25.08.2010 neetu