IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CM Nos. 12265-66 of 2009 and CWP No. 9804 of 2009 Date of decision : August 17, 2009 Smt. Surjant Kaur ….. Petitioner Versus The Financial Commissioner (Appeals – II) Punjab and Chandigarh and Others ….. Respondents Present: Mr. Jaideep Verma, Advocate for the petitioner/ non-applicant. Mr. Sudhir Mittal, Advocate for respondents No.4 to 6/applicants in C.M. Nos.12265-66 of 2009. **** S.S. SARON, J. The petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed seeking quashing of the order dated 17.4.2007 (Annexure P14) passed by the learned Financial Commissioner (Appeals-II), Punjab (respondent No.1). A further prayer has been made that a direction be issued for affirming the order dated 12.5.1983 (Annexure P3) passed by the Collector Agrarian and the order dated 5.6.2002 (Annexure P12) passed by the Collector Agrarian-cum- SDM, Ludhiana (West) in terms of which land was allotted to Joginder Singh (respondent No.7) under the Punjab Utilization of Surplus Area Scheme, 1973. A still further prayer has been made for affirming the order dated 9.3.2006 (Annexure P13) passed by the Commissioner, Patiala Division, Patiala. Learned counsel for the petitioner on 7.7.2009 had contended that Ajit Singh was a big land owner and his land measuring 66 Kanals 6 Marlas equal to 3.55 Hectares of first quality land was declared surplus under the CM Nos. 12265-66 of 2009 and -2- CWP No. 9804 of 2009 Punjab Land Reforms Act 1972. The Collector (Agrarian) Ludhiana vide order dated 26.6.1996, allotted land measuring 39 Kanals 6 Marlas equal to 2 Hectares of first quality land to one Gulzar Singh (predecessor-in-interest of respondents- 4 to 6) in accordance with the provisions of the Punjab Utilization of Surplus Area Scheme 1973. The allottee was liable to pay Rs 10,000/- in half yearly instalments of Rs 500/- each. Said Gulzar Singh failed to comply with the said condition and the allotment in his favour was cancelled on 30.3.1983 (P2). After the cancellation, the land was allotted to Joginder Singh (respondent-7) on 12.5.1983 (P3). The petitioner purchased the said land from Joginder Singh vide sale deed dated 16.12.1988 (P7). The petitioner, therefore, it is contended, is a bonafide purchaser of land from Joginder Singh (respondent-7) who was allotted the land. However, Joginder Singh (respondent-7), it is submitted, connived with the earlier allottee – Gulzar Singh and challenged the order dated 30.3.1983 (P2) regarding cancellation of the earlier allotment. The Additional Commissioner (Appeals) Patiala Division, it is submitted, after 27 years allowed the reference vide order dated 27.7.2000 (P11) to review the cancellation order dated 30.3.1983 (P2) and the order dated 12.5.1983 (P3) regarding allotment to Joginder Singh (respondent-7). The matter was considered by the Collector (Agrarian) Ludhiana (West) who vide order dated 5.6.2002 (P12) held the cancellation of allotment to Gulzar Singh vide order dated 30.3.1983 (P2) to be valid and the land was allotted to Joginder Singh (respondent-7). The LRs of Gulzar Singh (respondents-4 to 6) filed an appeal before the Divisional Commissioner, Patiala Division, Patiala who vide her order dated 9.3.2006 (P13) held that there was no need to re-open the case regarding cancellation of allotment to Gulzar Singh, the original allottee of the land. However, the case was remanded to the Collector (Agrarian) Ludhiana with the specific direction to pass a speaking order of the eligibility of Joginder Singh (respondent-7) for CM Nos. 12265-66 of 2009 and -3- CWP No. 9804 of 2009 the allotment of the above surplus land under the relevant rules. The LRs of Gulzar Singh (respondents-4 to 6) and Joginder Singh (respondent-7) preferred revision petitions before the Financial Commissioner (Appeals) Punjab who, vide order dated 17.4.2007 (P14) restored the allotment to Gulzar Singh and set aside the cancellation order dated 30.3.1983 (P2). It was submitted that the Financial Commissioner (Appeals) Punjab had gravely erred while passing the order dated 17.4.2007 (P14) restoring the allotment in favour of Gulzar Singh and setting aside the order dated 30.3.1983 (P2). It was submitted that the order dated 30.3.1983 (P2) was assailed almost after 27 years, and permission to review was granted on 27.7.2000 (P11). Therefore, after such lapse, permission to review was not liable to be granted. Besides, the plea of the petitioner being a bona fide purchaser had not been considered. Notice of motion was issued and operation of the impugned order dated 17.4.2007 (Annexure P14) was ordered to be stayed. Respondents No.4 to 6 who are the successor-in-interest of Gulzar Singh have put in appearance and filed their written statement. Besides, by way of C.M. No. 12266 of 2009 it is prayed that the ex parte stay be vacated. It is submitted that the petitioner has concealed material facts. It has been concealed by the petitioner that the impugned order dated 17.4.2007 (Annexure P14) was challenged in CWP No.9119 of 2007 filed by Joginder Singh (respondent No.7) against the Financial Commissioner (Appeals-II), Punjab and Chandigarh and others. The writ petition was dismissed by a Division Bench of this Court on 2.7.2008. Thereafter, review of the order dated 2.7.2008 was filed vide RA No.236 of 2008 which was also dismissed vide order dated 3.10.2008. The judgment of this Court was assailed by way of Special Leave Petition filed in Supreme Court of India and the same was dismissed on 1.12.2008 (Annexure R4/1). The order impugned in the present writ petition has therefore attained CM Nos. 12265-66 of 2009 and -4- CWP No. 9804 of 2009 finality. It is submitted that the petitioner was well aware of the said proceedings as she filed C.M. No.6377 of 2008 in CWP No. 9119 of 2007 under Order 1, Rule 10 CPC for impleading her as a party. Therefore, it is submitted that the petitioner has sworn a false affidavit. She was in fact liable to make mention about the said petition and the orders passed thereon. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that he was not aware of the other proceedings which were initiated by Joginder Singh (respondent No.7). Therefore, it is prayed that he may be allowed to withdraw the writ petition with liberty to seek appropriate remedies by mentioning all the facts as also to assail the order Annexure R4/2 passed in CWP No. 9119 of 2007 and the order dated 17.4.2007 (Annexure P14) as petitioner herself had not challenged those orders. After giving my thoughtful consideration to the matter it may be noticed that though the petitioner had not herself assailed the order dated 17.4.2007 (Annexure P14) in the earlier petition as that was assailed by Joginder Singh (respondent No.7), however, the said fact being within her knowledge was liable to be mentioned. In any case learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that he was not aware of the said orders. Therefore, he must not have been apprised of the same. In the circumstances it would be just and expedient to allow the petitioner to withdraw the writ petition with liberty to avail appropriate remedies by giving complete and detailed facts. Dismissed as withdrawn with liberty as prayed for. The applicants-respondents No.4 to 6 may also avail their remedies against the petitioner, if so advised, in accordance with law. (S.S. SARON) JUDGE August 17, 2009 amit