Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 3236 (PNJ)

Pritam Singh v. State Of Punjab

2006-08-09

S.N.AGGARWAL

body2006
Judgment , J. 1. Jit Singh-respondent No.5 was the owner of the suit land measuring 26 Bighas 3 Biswas comprised in Khasra Nos.329/285, 287 to 291 and 293 situated in revenue estate of village Shahpur Rayian, Tehsil Rajpura, District Patiala. It was declared surplus. It was allotted to Lachhman Singh-respondent No.6 and a certificate in the prescribed form was issued in his favour on 30.6.1976. Possession of this land was taken on 7.7.1976 and it was handed over to Lachhman Singh allottee. He had deposited a sum of Rs.500/- on 17.12.1976. 2. Jit Singh-respondent No.5 challenged the order, by which his land was declared surplus. However, the final order was passed by the Financial Commissioner against said Jit Singh on 13.1.1998. The said order was challenged by Jit Singh by filing CWP No.2086 of 1998. This writ petition was dismissed by this Court vide order dated 7.2.2000. 3. Thereafter, Lachhman Singh-respondent No.6 filed an application for permission to deposit the remaining amount of Rs.907/- against the allotment of this land. The Commissioner, Patiala Division, Patiala vide his letter dated 22.10.2001, approved the proposal of permitting Lachhman Singh to deposit the remaining amount for which the suit land was allotted to him. 4. The case of the petitioner was that he was the tenant on the suit land and Lachhman Singh has been wrongly permitted to deposit the outstanding amount of Rs.907/- on the wrong advise given by the District Attorney vide his letter dated 24.7.2001 (Annexure P-10 ). It was also submitted that the petitioner himself was an applicant for the allotment of this land for which he had submitted an application on 3.7.2001 (Annexure P-8 ). Hence, it was submitted that the opinion of the District Attorney was illegal. It was also submitted that the amount was being deposited by Lachhman Singh through his attorney Lakhmir Singh, who is none else but the son of Jit Singh, the original owner. It was, therefore, submitted that Jit Singh-original owner is operating through Lachhman Singh allottee and he is trying to grab the land. Hence, it was prayed that the suit land be allotted to the petitioner by quashing the proceedings permitting Lachhman Singh to deposit the outstanding amount of Rs.907/-. 5. The contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner has no legs to stand at all. The original owner was Jit Singh, whose land was declared surplus. Hence, it was prayed that the suit land be allotted to the petitioner by quashing the proceedings permitting Lachhman Singh to deposit the outstanding amount of Rs.907/-. 5. The contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner has no legs to stand at all. The original owner was Jit Singh, whose land was declared surplus. After the land was declared surplus, it was allotted to Lachhman Singh-respondent No.6. Jit Singh had challenged the order by which his land was declared surplus, which ultimately culminated in the dismissal of the writ petition on 7.2.2000 filed by him. The allotment of the suit land to Lachhman Singh was not at all cancelled, nor he was at all called upon to deposit the remaining amount. Since the suit land remained in suspense till 7.2.2000, as to whether it will continue to be a surplus land or not, therefore, the amount was not deposited by Lachhman Singh. But at the same time, neither he was asked to deposit the remaining amount, nor his allotment was cancelled for non-deposit of the outstanding amount. Therefore, the allotment of the suit land measuring 26 Bighas 3 Biswas in favour of Lachhman Singh continued till he was permitted to deposit the outstanding amount and thereafter, there was no cause for its cancellation. 6. The District Attorney had given the opinion, which was accepted by the Commissioner and by which Lachhman Singh was permitted to deposit the outstanding amount. No motives have been attributed to the District Attorney, nor any mala fide has been alleged against him. An opinion was sought from the District Attorney, which he had rendered. It was for the Commissioner to accept that opinion or not to accept that opinion. It was not binding on the Commissioner. Therefore, the District Attorney had not committed any mistake by giving the opinion which he thought fit in the circumstances of the case. 7. Lachhman Singh is the allottee. Whether he is taking necessary steps himself or he is operating through somebody else, is nobodys concern. It is the concern of Lachhman Singh-allottee alone. The petitioner has no right to question the bona fide of Lachhman Singh in carrying on his activities through his attorney or through a third person, by authorising him to do so. 8. Whether he is taking necessary steps himself or he is operating through somebody else, is nobodys concern. It is the concern of Lachhman Singh-allottee alone. The petitioner has no right to question the bona fide of Lachhman Singh in carrying on his activities through his attorney or through a third person, by authorising him to do so. 8. It is, therefore, held that neither the allotment of suit land to Lachhman Singh is illegal nor the permission granted to him for depositing the arrears of outstanding amount, after the report of the District Attorney, is wrong, nor the petitioner has the right to question his bona fide in acting through Lakhmir Singh-respondent No.7. The petitioner is not entitled to the allotment of the suit land, as it was already allotted to Lachhman Singh. The petitioner, however has illegally retained the possession by misusing the process of law. 9. Therefore, this petition is dismissed with costs of Rs.5,000/-. Liberty is also granted to Lachhman Singh-respondent to claim mesne profits against the petitioner for retaining illegal possession of the suit land by misusing the process of law.