HARPREETINDER SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner has impugned orders (Annexures P5 to P7) passed by Collector, Sub Division, Barnala, Commissioner, Patiala Division, Patiala and Financial Commissioner (Animal Husbandry), Punjab, respectively.

(2.) Counsel for the petitioner has assailed the orders on the ground that father of the petitioner, who was land owner, was not heard before impugned orders were passed. His father died on 30.8.1988. Thereafter, his wife was impleaded as a party, who also expired on 21.9.2003. Impugned orders are arbitrary and illegal, therefore, deserve to be set aside.

(3.) Plea has vehemently been opposed by counsel representing the respondents. State counsel has referred to reply filed by way of affidavit of Neeraj Kumar, Sub Division Magistrate-cum-Collector Agrarian, Sub Division Tapa, District Barnala. According to him, petitioner has tried to mislead this court. Father of the petitioner was duly served during the proceedings. He was proceeded ex parte on 20.5.1976. Ultimately, order regarding declaration of specific khasra numbers as surplus was made absolute on 17.6.1976. Thereafter, warrant of possession (Annexure R2) was issued on 29.6.1976. Order dated 20.5.1976 was never challenged by the petitioner. According to him, proceedings have now culminated. Thus, there is no ground to interfere at this stage.