- (1.) THIS order shall dispose of LPA No.2137 of 2013, tiled as Balkar Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab and others and LPA No.2027 of 2013, titled as Sucha Singh Vs. State of Punjab and others directed against the judgment of learned Single Bench of this Court in CWP No.7016 of 1995. The two appeals have been filed by the appellants, who are different allottees of the surplus land declared in the hands of Pritam Singh. Since the issues raised are common arising out of the same judgement, therefore, both the appeals are taken up for hearing together. As noticed by learned Single Bench, the case has a chequered history. We shall recapitulate the same in brief.
(2.) PRITAM Singh, the writ petitioner was in possession of land measuring 95.12 standard acres, which was initially a temporary settlement but subsequently in respect of part of the land, allotment on quasipermanent basis was made in the year 1958. There is an order passed by the Managing Officer on 12.06.1963 to the effect that 55.12 standard acres allotted on quasi permanent basis and 35.13 1/4 standard acres on temporary basis. It was also recorded therein that temporary allotment will be made permanent after verification of claim from Pakistan. Such process of allotment of land to Pritam Singh was a separate process in lieu of the land left by him after partition of the country. Simultaneously, the question as to whether, the land in his possession is surplus under the then applicable provisions of Pepsu Tenancy Agricultural Lands Act, 1955( for short 'the Pepsu Act') was being considered. The Collector passed an order on 18.07.1961 declaring land measuring 55.89 standard acres as surplus. An appeal filed against such order was dismissed by the Commissioner on 13.08.1962. The revision was dismissed by the learned Financial Commissioner on 18.04.1964. Pritam Singh challenged the aforesaid order by way of writ petition before this Court in Writ petition No.835 of 1964, which was allowed on 23.09.1968. The operative part of the order reads as under: "For the reasons given above, this petition is accepted, the order dated 18.07.1961 (Annexure 'A') of the Collector, Agrarian, Rajpura, order dated 13.08.1962 (Annexure 'B') of the Commissioner, Patiala Division and the order dated 18.04.1964 of the learned Financial Commissioner Planning, Punjab (Annexure 'H'), are quashed and the Collector, Agrarian, is directed to determine afresh the surplus area in the hands of petitioner No.1 in accordance with law. In the circumstances, I leave the parties to bear their own costs."
(3.) IN the said writ petition, the predecessor -in -interest of the appellants were the respondents being respondents No.4 to 30. The said order has attained finality as no appeal was filed either by the land owner or by the allottees. Pritam Singh died on 30.03.1983. The Collector considered the issue of surplus land in the hands of Pritam Singh vide order dated 27.05.1993 (Annexure P -10) and declared the land measuring 59.89 standard acres as surplus. The argument that the surplus land is to be redetermined keeping in view the fact that Pritam Singh has died and the land in hands of the each of the land owner was not accepted. Such order passed by the Collector was affirmed by the Commissioner on 17.11.1993 (Annexure P -11) and later by the Financial Commissioner on 17.08.1994 (Annexure P -12). The present writ is directed against the orders Annexures P -10, P -11 and P -12. It is argued that Pritam Singh has invoked the jurisdiction of this Court and of the Supreme Court, time and again but such writ petitions were not noticed when the order was passed by the learned Single Bench in CWP No.835 of 1964. The reference is to the following writ petitions i.e. CWP Nos.1386 of 1962 and 1166 of 1966 before this Court. It is also pointed out that Pritam Singh has filed a writ petition No.12 of 1963 before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, which was withdrawn on 29.03.1963 also and the writ petition No.768 of 1973 which was dismissed on 24.09.1986. It is thus contended that keeping in view that the earlier writ petitions filed by Pritam Singh, the order passed by the learned Single Bench on 23.09.1968 is not sustainable. In fact, Mr. Chahal argued that the said order has been obtained or managed by Pritam Singh by suppression of facts. Though before the Learned Single Judge, the argument raised was that the said order is "procured" order.;