Bhupinder Singh vs State of Punjab

H.S. Bedi, J. (Oral)

It is clear from a reading of para 6 of the writ petition as also the reply thereto that no notice of the surplus proceedings was given to the petitioner at any stage by the Collector, Land Reforms, Amritsar and the positive stand taken by the respondents is that there was in fact no necessity of making the petitioner a party with regard to the proceedings. Admittedly, the sale in favour of the petitioner by the original landowner was made in the year 1974 and mutation too was sanctioned on 30th October, 1974, whereas the order of the Collector was made in 1977. I am of the view that the petitioner had a right to show before the authorities below that the sale effected in his favour was a bona fide one which entitled him to the retention of the area sold to him. It is also clear from the impugned orders Annexures P3 and P4 that the solitary ground on which the Commissioner as also the Financial Commissioner had dismissed the revision petition filed by the petitioner was that they were time barred. I am of the view that the orders impugned before those authorities were made without issuing any notice to the petitioner, and as such, were void in the eye of law. The present writ petition is allowed, the impugned orders before the Collector, Land Reforms, Amritsar, on 16th July, 1992.