IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.1561 of 1986 (O&M) Date of decision:25.11.2011 Brahmjit alias Lilu (deceased) through his LRs, and others. ...Petitioners versus State of Haryana, through the Secretary to Government, Haryana, Revenue Department, Chandigarh, and others. ....Respondents II. Civil Writ Petition No.1562 of 1986 (O&M) Man Singh and another ...Petitioners versus State of Haryana, through the Secretary to Government, Haryana, Revenue Department, Chandigarh, and others. ....Respondents III. Civil Writ Petition No.1563 of 1986 (O&M) Mange Ram and others ...Petitioners versus State of Haryana, through the Secretary to Government, Haryana, Revenue Department, Chandigarh, and others. ....Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN ---- Present: Mr. Harbhagwan Singh, Senior Advocate, with Ms. Dilraj Kaur, Advocate, and Mr. S.N.Pillania, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr. Satbir Singh Goripuria, DAG, Haryana. Mr. Mani Ram Verma, Advocate. ---- Civil Writ Petition No.1561 of 1986 (O&M) - 2 - 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) I. CWP No.1561 of 1986 1. The complaint by the petitioner is that he was a purchaser of the property and he had not been served with notice of proceedings. The learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner would contend that a purchaser was always entitled to be served with notice to hear the objections and any determination done in the absence of such purchaser is not a valid determination. 2. In my view, it all depends on when the purchaser has obtained an interest in the property. In this case, the order of the Collector was passed declaring the surplus on 26.08.1960. Admittedly, the petitioner was not an owner at that time. According to the learned senior counsel, the purchaser obtained an interest in the property from the original owner subsequent to this order. The mutation itself had been ordered in favour of the petitioner/purchaser only on 23.02.1968. I have not been shown any law that a purchaser subsequent to an order of the Collector would also be required to join the proceedings. Indeed such a requirement simply does not exist. The learned senior counsel would also contend that the owner was not also properly served with notice. It shall be open to the owner to take up such objections as what was Civil Writ Petition No.1561 of 1986 (O&M) - 3 - available to him if any adjudication had been made in his absence. It will not avail to a purchaser, who had purchased the property subsequent to an adjudication to complain of want of notice to the owner. The writ petition filed by the purchaser would require to be dismissed and accordingly dismissed. II. CWP Nos.1562 and 1563 of 1986 3. The learned counsel for the State contends that the above said cases address the issue of want of notice to a subsequent purchaser before an adjudication was made regarding the treatment of surplus. The fact that the purchases were before the adjudication is not denied by the State. The impugned proceedings are quashed and there shall be a fresh redetermination after service of notice on the respective purchasers or the successor-in-interest. 4 The notices shall also be issued to any persons who may be affected as such by adjudication, including any subsequent allottees of the property. 5. Both the writ petitions are disposed of. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE 25.11.2011 sanjeev