Sabar Khan vs Financial Commissioner (Appeals) Punjab and ors.

Jawahar Lal Gupta, J. (Oral)

The petitioners herein purchased certain land from Balbir Singh respondent No. 4. This respondent was admittedly a big landowner. The Collector (Agrarian) Fatehgarh Sahib Bassi, declared his land surplus vide order dated June 29, 1976. It appears that on appeal the case was remanded to the Collector and finally by order dated March 2, 1983, the case was disposed of. A copy of this order is annexed as P1. It appears that the present petitioners filed an appeal before the Collector and sought an opportunity to show that they were bona fide purchasers and were entitled to retain the possession of the land. Having failed, they filed appeal before the Commissioner Patiala Division, who found that the sales had been effected after the "appointed day" and as such the petitioners had no right. Even the revision before the Financial Commissioner having failed on the same ground, the petitioners have approached this Court through the present writ petition.

Written statement on behalf of respondent No. 3 has been filed the claim made in the petition has been controverted.

Mr. M.M.S. Bedi, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are bona fide purchasers. By the impugned action, they have been deprived of their money as well property. While doing so, it was incumbent on respondent No. 2 to afford the petitioners an opportunity to show that the land was not surplus in the hands of respondent No. 4. Having not been afforded an opportunity, their rights have been adversely effected. On behalf of the respondent, it is urged that there was no valid sale in favour of the petitioner except those mentioned at Serial Nos 6 and 8 out of the sales mentioned in paragraph 2 of the writ petition. On this premises, it is contended that the petitioners were entitled to a hearing only in respect of land purchased by the petitioners through the said two sale deeds. In fact, Mr. H. S. Bhullar, counsel for the respondent No. 4 contends that except the sales at serial No. 6 and 8 as detailed in paragraph 2 of the writ petition, all other sales have been set aside by the appropriate Courts and the petitioners have no right to be heard.

This position has been controverted by Mr. Bedi who submits that he has already raised objection in the executing Court and the matter is pending.

Without going into the legality or otherwise of the sales, I find that the petitioners have not been granted opportunity of hearing only on the ground that the sales had taken place after the "appointed day". The fact remains that the petitioners had got registered sale deeds in their favour. They were in actual physical possession of the land. By the impugned action they were likely to be deprived of their land. Their civil rights were bound to be affected. In accordance with the ratio of the judgment of the Full Bench in State of Haryana v. Vinod Kumar 1986 PLJ 161 : 1987 R.R.R. 81, and also a later decision, reported as Attar Singh v. Meer Singh 1996 PLJ 72 : 1985 R.R.R. 157, it was incumbent on the concerned authorities to hear the petitioners before disposing of the matter. Thiswas not done. It was violative of the principle of natural justice. The petitioners did not have any chance to be heard. They deserve to be given hearing.

Accordingly, orders Annexures P1, P2 and P3 are set aside and the case is remanded to the Collector (Agrarian), Fatehgarh Sahib Bissi, to decide the matter afresh after hearing the petitioners. Since I have expressed no opinion on the merits of the case, it will be open to the parties to raise various contentions in accordance with law. No costs.