Civil Writ Petition No.20451 of 2009 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.20451 of 2009 Date of Order: 14.01.2010 Chattar Singh ....Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others ..Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIVE BHALLA Present: Ms. Sonia G.Singh, Advocate for the petitioner. RAJIVE BHALLA, J (Oral). The petitioner challenges orders dated 19.12.2008, 27.12.2000, 24.09.1998 and 31.12.1997, passed by the Financial Commissioner, Haryana, Commissioner, Rohtak, Collector, Karnal and Assistant Collector Ist Grade, Assandh, vide which, his application for setting aside the exparte-order was dismissed. 22 kanals 11 marlas of land belonging to the petitioner's father was declared surplus and was allotted to respondent no.5 being a sitting tenant. The petitioner's father apparently threatened respondent no.5 with forcible dispossession. Respondent no.5 filed a suit for permanent injunction but as during the pendency of the suit, he was dispossessed, the suit was amended and a prayer for possession of the suit land was added. The suit was, however, dismissed as not maintainable. Respondent no.5 thereafter filed an application dated 24.03.1975 before the Assistant Collector-Ist Grade, for restoration of his possession. The application was Civil Writ Petition No.20451 of 2009 -2- dismissed but an appeal filed before the Collector, was accepted and the matter was remanded to the Assistant Collector Ist Grade, to decide the matter afresh. The application was again dismissed on 15.09.1987 but the Collector vide order dated 14.06.1988 again remanded the matter to the Assistant Collector Ist Grade to decide the matter afresh. During the pendency of the proceedings before the Assistant Collector Ist Grade, the petitioner's father passed away and though the petitioner and the proforma respondents were impleaded as parties, they were proceeded against ex-parte. Vide order dated 17.03.1992, the Assistant Collector Ist Grade ordered that as Dalip Singh, respondent no.5 has been illegally dispossessed, possession of land measuring 22 kanals 11 marlas should be restored to him. Dalip Singh thereafter filed an execution application. The petitioner filed an application on 03.12.1992 to set aside the ex-parte order dated 17.03.1992. The application was accepted and the execution petition was dismissed. Respondent no.5 filed an appeal before the Collector who vide order dated 26.10.1994 accepted the appeal and set aside the order passed by the Executing Court by holding that the Executing Court had no jurisdiction to entertain an application to set aside an ex-parte order. The petitioner thereafter filed an application on 28.04.1995, before the Assistant Collector Ist Grade for setting aside the ex-parte order dated 17.03.1992. The application was dismissed on 18.05.1995. The petitioner filed an appeal, which was allowed by the Collector, vide order dated 13.02.1996 and the matter was remitted to the Assistant Collector Ist Grade to decide the application afresh. On 31.12.1997, the application was once again dismissed Civil Writ Petition No.20451 of 2009 -3- and thereafter the appeal and the revision filed by the petitioner before the Collector, the Commissioner and the Financial Commissioner, were dismissed. Counsel for the petitioner submits that revenue authorities have failed to appreciate that the petitioner was not aware of the pendency of the application filed by respondent no.5 and as the exs- parte order was passed against a dead person, the order is a nullity and should, therefore, have been set aside. I have heard counsel for the petitioner, perused the impugned orders and find no reason to hold that the revenue authorities have committed any error. The blatant dispossession of the allottee Dalip Singh, and the subsequent restoration of his possession, by the revenue authorities does not call for interference. As justice has been done, the discretionary power under Article 226 of the Constitution cannot be invoked to perpetuate an illegal act. The revenue authorities have recorded findings of fact that the land in dispute was allotted to the private respondent who was illegally dispossessed by the petitioner's father. The revenue authorities have considered the petitioner's submissions against the ex-parte proceedings and have refused to interfere on the ground that the application for setting aside the order dated 17.03.1992 was hopelessly time barred. Dismissed. January 14, 2010 (RAJIVE BHALLA) nt JUDGE