IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.1803 of 2008 Date of Decision: April 19, 2011 Rehman & others .....PETITIONER(S) VERSUS State of Haryana & others .....RESPONDENT(S) . . . CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA PRESENT: - Mr. Ashok Verma, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. B.S. Saini, Senior Deputy Advocate General, Haryana, for respondent Nos.1 to 6. Mr. G.S. Gandhi, Advocate, for respondent No.7. . . . AJAI LAMBA, J (Oral) 1. This petition has been filed praying for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari, quashing Order dated 9.1.1992 (Annexure P-12) passed by respondent No.2, Allotment Authority, Ferozepur Jhirka, District Gurgaon; Order dated 20.5.2004 (Annexure P-18) passed by respondent No.4, Commissioner, Gurgaon CWP No.1803 of 2008 [2] Division, Gurgaon; and Order dated 8.12.2006 (Annexure P-19) passed by the Division Bench of Financial Commissioners. 2. Land allotted in favour of respondent No.7 came to be challenged at the instance of the petitioners. The authorities vide the impugned orders have adjudicated against the petitioners. 3. Sequence of events, as it emanates from the record and admitted by learned counsel for the parties, needs to be noticed. 4. Certain land came to be declared surplus on 25.4.1960. In this regard, document has been placed on record as Annexure R-1 alongwith affidavit of Shri Umed Singh Mohan, HCS, Sub Divisional Officer (Civil), Ferozepur Jhirka, sworn on 20.1.2011. Vide Annexure R-5 placed on record alongwith the same affidavit, 23 kanal 16 marlas of land came to be allotted to the fathers of the petitioners vide order dated 24.3.1964. 5. It appears that fathers of the petitioners did not make payment to the Department and therefore, vide Annexure R-6, placed on record with the aforesaid affidavit, notice dated 24.4.1979 for cancellation of allotment of land was given to fathers of the CWP No.1803 of 2008 [3] petitioners. In view of cancellation of allotment of land, mutation was sanctioned in favour of the Haryana Government on 12.2.1980. 6. Respondent No.7 filed an application for allotment of land on 2.12.1991. Vide Annexure P-12 dated 9.1.1992, land was allotted to respondent No.7. 7. On 2.2.1992, petitioners instituted a civil suit. The petitioners claimed that their predecessors were recorded as tenants in the revenue record under Haryana Government. The predecessors having died, petitioners are legal representatives and have been in cultivating possession of the land as tenants under the Haryana State on the same terms and conditions, and are in actual physical position in that capacity. In the alternative, it was prayed that on account of long possession, petitioners had attained the status of occupancy tenants under Sections 5 and 8 of the Punjab Tenancy Act, 1887, and therefore, had become full fledged owners of land. The defendants have no right to dis-possess the petitioners except in due course of law. The order of allotment to Sarup Singh (respondent No.7, in the present case) is illegal because the same has been issued at the back of the petitioners. CWP No.1803 of 2008 [4] 8. The civil suit was dismissed. The petitioners carried an appeal that has been dismissed vide Judgment dated 2.3.2001 (Annexure P-16). 9. At this juncture, the petitioners impugned Annexure P-12 i.e. order of allotment of land in favour of respondent No.7 on 11.7.2001 i.e. after more than 8 years. Vide Order Annexure P-17/T dated 24.9.2002, District Collector, Gurgaon, allowed the appeal and remanded the case for denovo proceedings to the prescribed authority. Respondent No.7 being allottee of land, impugned order Annexure P-17/T before the Commissioner. Appeal has been allowed vide Order dated 20.5.2004 (Annexure P-18). The petitioners carried a revision that has been dismissed vide Order dated 8.12.2006 (Annexure P-19). 10. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the allotment of land in favour of respondent No.7 is not as per due process and therefore, the petitioners have a better right to continue in possession of land. Civil Court had no jurisdiction to adjudicate on the issue. 11. Learned counsel for the respondent- State contends that land was allotted in favour of respondent No.7 as far back as on 9.1.1992. The conduct of the petitioners has been malafide CWP No.1803 of 2008 [5] in so much as, first, Civil Court was approached. Having failed upto the first appellate forum, statutory appeal was filed. 12. I have heard the learned counsel and have gone through the record. 13. Stand of the respondent-State on the basis of documents placed on record and referred to above in the affidavit filed by Shri Umed Singh Mohan, is in the following terms:- “2. It is worth mentioning here that the land in question after declaring surplus area was allotted vide Form K-6 dated 24-03-1964 to Sh Kareem Khan and Sh Ghosi sons of Sulla both residents of Village Gheera Tehsil Punhana who were the fathers of petitioners and also were in possession as tenant at the time of declaration of surplus area. A copy of the allotment letter is Annexure R-5. However the above said Sh Kareem Khan and Sh Ghosi could not deposit the due installments of the aforesaid land allotted to them till 24-04-1979. Since the fathers of petitioners had not deposit the due installments. So competent authority issued them show a cause notice why allotment should not be cancelled. A copy of show cause notice is Annexure R-6. Had the fathers of petitioners deposited the due installments, the mutation would have been sanctioned in favour of them, but they failed to deposit the due installments. So, the mutation of the land in question could not be sanctioned in favour of them. As a result, the name of Haryana Govt. in the column of ownership was still continuous till 09-01-1992 and the land vested in Haryana Govt. which was legal, bonafide and sustainable in the eyes of law. It is further worth mentioning here that the land in question has been allotted to Sh Saroop Singh, Respondent No. 7 on 09-01-1992 which is legal.” 14. This Court has confronted the learned counsel for the petitioners with specific stand of the respondents as given in the extract above. Learned counsel for the petitioners, however, has not been able to give any response to the fact that the land indeed was allotted to CWP No.1803 of 2008 [6] the predecessors-in-interest of the petitioners. Predecessors-in-interest, however, did not make payment after allotment of land and therefore, notice regarding cancellation of allotment of land was issued whereafter mutation was sanctioned in favour of Haryana Government. It is thereafter that the land was allotted to respondent No.7. 15. Having considered the factual position as it emanates from the record and clarified by the respondent-State in the affidavit, portion whereof has been extracted above, I am of the considered opinion that the petitioners have no right to agitate the matter, their predecessors-in-interest having failed in making payment to the respondent-State after allotment of land. 16. Petitioners, at the first instance, approached the Civil Court. The suit was dismissed, whereafter first appeal was filed. In the civil proceedings, order of allotment of land in favour of respondent No.7 was challenged. In these circumstances, it does not lie with the petitioners to say that Civil Court had no jurisdiction in the matter. 17. After dismissal of the first appeal, appellate authority under the Statute was CWP No.1803 of 2008 [7] approached. Proceedings have culminated in passing of order, Annexure P-19 by a Bench of Financial Commissioners. 18. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case noted above, no ground for interference is made out. Learned counsel for the petitioners has not been able to make out any ground for judicial review of the orders. 19. The petition is dismissed. (AJAI LAMBA) April 19, 2011 JUDGE avin 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?