B.R.Tuli, J. - (1.) AMIN Lal, Respondent 2 and Ram Narain, his nephew, Respondent 3, jointly held land which was partitioned between them in 1957. As a result of the partition, the land in dispute came to the share of Amin Lal. The land in dispute measures 20 bighas and 17 bighas comprised in khasra numbers 324 and 909/195, situate in village Bazidpur Katianwali, Tahsil Fazilka, District Ferozepur. This land was being cultivated by Jagmal Singh Respondent 1 under Respondents 2 and 3 in 1956. On 9th July, 1958, the petitioners and his three, brothers sons of Amin Lal filed a suit against, their father Amin Lal for declaration that the plaintiffs were the owners and in possession of the respective lands mentioned in the plaint. This suit was decreed on 14th July, 1958, in view of the statement made by Amin Lal. It is thus evident that it was a consent decree. By means of this decree, field No. 324 measuring 13 bighas and 15 biswas fell to the share of Balwant Rai Petitioner No. 1 and field No. 909/195 fell to the share of Amar Singh Petitioner No. 2.
(2.) AS a result of consolidation proceedings, in lieu of field Nos. 324 and 909/195, which were being cultivated by Respondent No. 1, he was allotted 99 kanals and 6 marlas of land comprised in various killa numbers mentioned in paragraph 3 of the petition. On 2nd July, 1965, the tenant Jagmal Singh, Respondent No. 1, made an application for the purchase of the said land under section 18 of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953, hereinafter called the Act, to the Assistant Collector 1st Grade, Fazilka, Respondents 2 and 3 were made respondents to that application as the land was entered in their names in the revenue records. At that time, Ram Narain, Respondent 3, was a minor and was studying in a College. No guardian ad litem was appointed for him in the purchase application. In the written statement filed by Respondent 2, it was stated that he had transferred the land to the petitioners and they should be impleaded as respondents and that Ram Narain, Respondent 3 was a minor, but in spite of that statement, neither the petitioners were impleaded as parties, nor was any guardian appointed for Ram Narain. On 28th May, 1966, Balwant Rai made an application through Shri Gokal Chand Advocate that the petitioners along with their brother Ram Partap were necessary parties for the effective adjudication of the case as the property stood in their names. On this application, the following order was passed by the Assistant Collector 1st Grade, Ferozepur, Camp at Fazilka, on 2nd June, 1966 : Presented by Shri Gokal Chand Advocate for Balwant Rai. Also present Shri Subhash Chand counsel for the tenant. Arguments heard. I observe from Fard Jamabandi, Exhibit P.5, that in the column of ownership Amin Lal and Ram Narain are the only recorded co -sharers. The learned counsel for Balwant Rai has not adduced any evidence in support of his claim for impleading Balwant Rai as necessary party. I, therefore, reject this application. It has been pointed out by learned counsel for the petitioners that the evidence of the tenant had been concluded on 6th May, 1966, and the case was adjourned for evidence of the respondents to 2nd June, 1966. On 2nd June, 1966, Respondents 2 and 3 did not produce any evidence and the case was adjourned to 8th July, 1966, on payment of Rs. 25/ - as costs. The application of Balwant Rai was summarily dismissed on 2nd June, 1966, when it came for hearing before the learned Assistant Collector for the first time. No opportunity was given to Balwant Rai to produce copy of the decree and to prove that the land had fallen to his share and that of his brothers. On 8th July, 1966, Respondents 2 and 3 produced no evidence and the learned Assistant Collector passed an order accepting the application of Jagmal Singh respondent allowing him to purchase the land for Rs. 779.76 per acre. The price of the land was determined on the basis of ten years' average price of similar land which had been worked out by the Patwari and it came to Rs. 1039.84 per acre. Respondent 1 was required to pay three -fourth of that price according to section 18 of the Act. Respondents 2 and 3 filed an appeal against that order in the Court of the Collector on 12th August, 1966, which was dismissed on 7th October, 1966. The petitioners filed the present writ petition on 15th December, 1967, in which a prayer has been made for the quashing of the orders of the Assistant Collector dated 8th July, 1966, and the order of the Collector dated 7th October, 1966.
(3.) THE return to the writ petition has been filed by Respondent 1 who has contested the petition. In the return, a preliminary objection has been taken that the writ petition is belated as it has been filed after an expiry of about 14 months of the impugned order dated 7th October, 1966, and no explanation of delay has been given. The second objection raised is that alternative remedies under the Act have not been exhausted. I do not find any force in these preliminary objections. The petitioners were not parties to those proceedings and they could ignore the same, but as the respondents are acting upon those orders, necessity has arisen for them to get that order quashed. The petitioners had no right to pursue any remedies under the Act as they were not parties to the application. Therefore, the objection with regard to exhaustion of alternative remedies cannot prevail against them.;