Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 1655 (PNJ)

Amar Singh v. State Of Haryana

2003-12-10

S.S.NIJJAR

body2003
Judgment S.S.Nijjar, J. 1. The petitioners have filed this writ petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India for the issue of a writ in the nature of Ceitiorari quashing the order, Annexure P1 passed by the Tehsildar (Sales) and the order, Annexure P4 passed by the Joint Secretary (Rehabilitation)-cum-Settlement Commissioner dated 23.5.1983 dismissing the revision filed by the petitioners. The revision petition was stated to have been field on behalf of Maman Singh, Amar Singh, Umrao and Kurara Ram. The crucial point for determination as formulated by the Joint Secretary was whether the order passed by the Tehsildar (Sales) concerning sale of Killa No. 83/22/22 min and 23 min held on 13.1.1972 and confirmed by S.O. (Sales) on 8.2.1962 should be upheld or it should be set aside. 2. It was argued by the counsel for the respondents that the point had already been decided by the Joint Secretary in case No. 7/Appeal/DSR/SC/82/48/Revision/JSR/SC/82. It was argued by the learned counsel for the respondents that the point involved in the aforesaid case was the same which was the subject matter of the revision petition which has been decided by Order, Annexure P4. It was, however, argued on behalf of petitioners No. 1 and 3 that they were not parties in the earlier case. Therefore, the order dated 20.12.1982 passed in the earlier cases would not operate as res judicata qua petitioners No. 1 and 3 in the present petition. The State of Haryana, however, submitted that although petitioners No. 1 and 3 were not parties in that case, yet the issue involved was substantially the same on which the findings have already been given by the Joint Secretary. In the order dated 20.12.1982, the Joint Secretary held as follows:- 3. The aforesaid order of the Joint Secretary was challenged in Civil Writ Petition No. 2898 of 1993 by petitioners No. 2 and 3 in the present proceedings. The writ petition was dismissed by Honble Mr. In the order dated 20.12.1982, the Joint Secretary held as follows:- 3. The aforesaid order of the Joint Secretary was challenged in Civil Writ Petition No. 2898 of 1993 by petitioners No. 2 and 3 in the present proceedings. The writ petition was dismissed by Honble Mr. Justice K.C. Gupta on 22.9.2000 with the following observations:- "Therefore, from the above documents and averments, it is clear that no passage was allotted to Bakhtawar Singh and Modi Ram, petitioners when they were allotted land in restricted auction and further the petitioners had got a thorough-fare of 3 Karams width which entered in Killa Nos.20, 6, 10, 11 and Killa No. 20 belonged to his son and that passage was being used by Bakhtawar Singh. There is nothing on record to show that any passage was carved out of any killa numbers mentioned in the writ petition by the officer who conducted the auction of the land. At the time of auction, if the petitioners were aggrieved, as no passage was provided to them, they should have filed objections under Rule 9 of the State Rules framed for the disposal of Rural Package Deal land and Properties but they did not do so. The request of the petitioners for providing a path had already been rejected by the Additional Director, Consolidation of Holdings, vide order dated 7.4.1982, as they had purchased land after the completion of the consolidation proceedings and question of providing a path to such vendees did not arise and further the original Kurrah of the custodian was duly connected by a path as provided in the scheme. The objections were filed by the petitioners after a period of 10 years. It was observed by the Joint Secretary (Rehabilitation)-cum-Settlement Commissioner that if the petitioner, Bakhtawar Singh, did not feel any difficulty during the last 10 years for approaching to his land, then it was not justified for him to raise objections at a belated stage. Therefore, in view of the fore-going reasons, there is no force in the writ petition and as such the same is dismissed. Sd/- K.C. Gupta, Judge." 4. Relying on the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the respondents in the written statement have taken a preliminary objection that the present writ petition is liable to be dismissed. 5. I find sufficient force in the submission made by the learned counsel for the State of Haryana. Sd/- K.C. Gupta, Judge." 4. Relying on the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the respondents in the written statement have taken a preliminary objection that the present writ petition is liable to be dismissed. 5. I find sufficient force in the submission made by the learned counsel for the State of Haryana. A perusal of the title page of the present writ petition also shows that the petitioners had relied upon the issuance of notice of motion in Civil Writ Petition No. 2898 of 1993. As noticed earlier, the aforesaid writ petition has been dismissed by this Court. Consequently, I find no merit in the present writ petition and the same is hereby dismissed. No costs.