ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, J. - (1.) THIS Letters Patent Appeal has been filed against the judgment of learned Single Judge dated 24.8.2005, dismissing Civil Writ Petition No. 5379 of 1995, against which Review Petition was also filed being R.A. No. 272 of 2005, which was dismissed on 27.4.2007.
(2.) THE appellant-petitioners purchased 23 Kanals 12 marlas of land on 6.3.1972. The said land had been declared surplus area on 23.9.1970 (Annexure R-1 on record) under the provisions of the Punjab Security of land Tenures Act, 1953 (in short, 'the 1953 Act'). After coming into force of Punjab Land Reforms Act, 1972 (in short, 'the 1972 Act'), proceedings under the said Act were taken and vide order dated 30.6.1976 (Annexure P.1), surplus area was declared under the provisions of the said Act, after excluding the surplus area which had already been declared, which had been purchased by the appellant-petitioners. There are, certain observations in the said order to the effect that area which was sold by the big land owner after the appointed date i.e. 24.1.1971, was included in the permissible area. In fact, in the calculation, the area which was held to be permissible area, did not include the area sold to the appellant- petitioners which had been declared surplus vide order dated 23.9.1970 and had vested in the State. The appellant-petitioners challenged the order dated 30.6.1976 by filing a suit, taking the plea that they were bona fide purchasers. This plea was rejected and suit was dismissed on 18.8.1980. The said decree was, however, set aside in appeal on 16.10.1981 on the ground that the Civil Court had no jurisdiction. The plaint was returned to the appellant-petitioners.
(3.) THE appellant-petitioners, then filed an application before the Assistant Collector for setting aside the allotment of the land purchased by them, which had already been declared surplus and which stood allotted vide orders dated 7.10.1976 and 11.2.1978 in favour of contesting private respondents. The said application was dismissed by the Assistant Collector vide order dated 31.1.1983 (Annexure P.2). The Assistant Collector held that he had no jurisdiction to set aside the allotment. The said order was affirmed in appeal by the Collector vide order dated 25.10.1983 (Annexure P.3). The Collector held that the only remedy available with the appellant-petitioners was to challenge allotment before a higher forum i.e. before the Commissioner.;