IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.3397 of 1986 (O&M) Date of decision:19.10.2011 Shamsher Singh and others. ...Petitioners versus State of Haryana, through Secretary to Government, Haryana, Revenue Department, Chandigarh, and others ....Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN ---- Present: Mr. Liaqat Ali, Advocate, for Mr. Arun Walia, Advocate, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr. O.P.Sharma, Additional Advocate General, Haryana. ---- 1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? No. 2. To be referred to the reporters or not ? No. 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest ? No. ---- K.Kannan, J. (Oral) 1. Mr. Liaqat Ali, Advocate, for Mr. Arun Walia, Advocate, appearing for the petitioners seeks for adjournment. I decline the plea for adjournment since the case is of the year 1986 and proceed to dispose of the case on the basis of records and on the submissions made by the counsel for the private respondents. 2. The respondents are allottees of properties from out of the surplus pool declared under the provisions of the Pepsu Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act of 1953. The order impugned is an order Civil Writ Petition No.3397 of 1986 (O&M) - 2 - of the Collector declaring the property in the hands of Mangal Singh as in surplus over the permissible area. The petitioners claim to be transferees before the order of declaration of surplus. It is inconceivable how the petitioners would challenge the order of declaration of surplus by a writ petition when the remedy under the Act itself ought to have been availed to challenge the declaration of surplus. 3. Indeed, it appears that the big landowner Mangal Singh himself appears to have filed a writ petition challenging the declaration but later had it dismissed as withdrawn. The petitioners, who claimed that the declaration made was without notice to them, cannot wait till the allotments are made and seek for annulling the declaration made in the year, 1960 through a writ petition filed 2 scores and 5 years later. 4. There is no merit in the writ petition and the same is dismissed. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE 19.10.2011 sanjeev