RAJIVE BHALLA,J - (1.) THIS order shall dispose of CWP Nos. 5533 and 5534 of 1982, as identical questions of fact and law arise for adjudication.
(2.) THE petitioner prays for the issuance of a writ in the nature of Certiorari for quashing the orders date 12.5.1981 and 22.9.1982, passed by the Commissioner, Ambala Division, Ambala and the Financial Commissioner, Haryana, respectively. In order to appreciate the controversy obtaining herein a brief narrative of the facts that have been extracted from CWP No. 5533 of 1982, would be appropriate. Shiv Dev Singh-respondent No. 8 and his wife Harbans Kaur are admittedly big land owners. Shiv Dev Singh's surplus area case was decided by the Collector, Panipat on 26.10.1960 by declaring 36 Std. Acres and 12.1/2 units of land as surplus. After a prolonged bout of litigation, the Financial Commissioner set aside the order of surplus area and remanded the case to the Collector for redetermination. In the meanwhile, the petitioner , a tenant of a small land owner evicted from his tenancy, subject to his re-settlement on surplus area, was allotted 5 Std. Acres of land from Shiv Dev Singh's surplus area, Shiv Dev Singh's surplus area was redetermined on 14.7.1976, and the area, which was allotted to the petitioner in 1971 once again fell in the surplus pool. The petitioner therefore approached the Collector, Agrarian for allotment/delivery of possession of the land allotted to him on 20.9.1971. Vide order dated 14.7.1976, the Collector Agrarian, accepted the petitioner's prayer and directed delivery of possession of land to the petitioner. Pursuant to warrants of possession issued by the Collector, possession was delivered to the petitioner. Thereafter, an attempt was made to dispossess the petitioner. Proceedings under Section 145 Cr.P.C. were initiated and the land was attached. The petitioner, approached the Hon'ble High Court where the attachment was quashed on 22.8.1978, thus, accepting the petitioner's possession.
(3.) APPARENTLY , disappointed with the failure of his attempt to thwart the allotment of land to the petitioner, the big landowner manipulated two applications from respondents No. 4 to 7, in the shape of objections, to the order of allotment, dated 14.7.1976. Respondents No. 4 to 7 claimed that the land had been wrongly allotted to the petitioner, as he had colluded with his land owner to procure an order of ejectment. They also alleged that as they were sitting tenants of Shiv Dev Singh, they had a preferential right to allotment. The Collector, considered these objections but rejected them by holding that he has no jurisdiction to review his order.;