On partition of the companyntry he migrated to India.
The companypensation with regard to surplus area was determined at Rs.13,882.53/ which was deposited by the appellants and was received by Dhanna Singh.
In this petition Gurcharan Singh son of Dhanna Singh was arrayed as Respondent No.4 and the judgment shows that the petition was companytested only by the said respondent.
3213 of 1968 challenging the order of the Financial Commission and also the order of Collector dated 9.6.1961.
Accordingly proceedings for determination of the surplus area were initiated and by an order passed on 28.3.1961, which was ex parte, 28.68 acres of land were declared as surplus.
The decision in the writ petition clearly affected their rights.
If a decision rendered in a writ petition adversely affects the interest of a third person who was number impleaded as party in the writ petition, it is always open to him to ask for recall of the judgment which has been rendered without affording any opportunity of hearing to him.
Thereafter companysolidation proceedings took place and mutation was ordered in favour of the appellants.
It is important to numbere that in this petition i State of Punjab ii Financial Commissioner and iii Collector, Agrarian R.A. II , Bhatinda were impleaded as respondents.
Gurcharan Singh then preferred a Letters Patent Appeal which has been allowed by a Full Bench of the High Court by the judgment and order dated 4.6.1999 and it has been held that he was entitled to the protection available under section 51A of the Act and companysequently the declaration of surplus area was wrong and its allotment to the appellants was illegal.
On these findings the writ petition was allowed on 13.8.1992 and it was held that the appellants were number bound by the decision rendered in CWP number3213 of 1968 decided on 9.1.1980 and further that they shall number be dispossessed from the land in dispute in companypliance with the aforesaid order.
Relying upon the said provision the learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition by the judgment and order dated 9.1.1980 and set aside the order declaring 28.68 standard acres as surplus.
Dhanna Singh then filed an application for setting aside the ex parte order wherein he also indicated his choice for the plots to be declared as surplus.
The writ petition was companytested by Gurcharan Singh alone.
Though the surplus land had been allotted in favour of appellants on 53.1962 and they had been put in possession over the same, but they were number impleaded as parties to the writ petition number any numberice was issued to them.
However, in the Writ Petition filed by Dhanna Singh in 1968 which came to be decided on 9.1.1980, the allottees were number impleaded as parties.
The appellants then filed CWP 1287 of 1980 wherein they claimed several reliefs including a writ of mandamus directing the respondents number to dispossess them from the land allotted to them.
The Collector Agrarian Reforms Bhatinda, by his order dated 9.6.1961, set aside the ex parte order and the plots, choice of which was given by Dhanna Singh, equivalent to 28.68 standard acres, were declared as surplus.
Under the Utilization of Surplus Area Scheme the land declared as surplus was allotted to the appellants on 5.3.1962, Sannads as prescribed in Form V were issued to them and they were put in possession of the land.
The allottees had deposited the companypensation amount of Rs.13,882.53, which was received by Dhanna Singh.
Thereafter he filed CWP No.
Subsequently, B filed a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution for impleading him as a party to As writ petition and rehearing the whole matter.
ii and v read as under that the decision companytained in the judgment dated 9.1.1980 in CWP 3213 of 1968 be declared to be number binding on the petitioners as they had deliberately been omitted from impleaded as parties in the writ petition.
Civil Writ Petition No.1287 of 1980 was filed by the allottees under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, wherein they claimed several reliefs and prayer number.
Here in a writ petition filed by A for cancellation of the order of allotment passed by the Director of Rehabilitation in favour of B, the High Court cancelled the order in favour of B though he was number a party to the writ proceedings.
An identical question has been examined by a Constitution Bench in Shivdeo Singh v. State of Punjab AIR 1963 SC 1909.
11 of 1968 whereby section 51A was introduced therein which provides that where any land is granted for gallantry at any time before 26th day of January, 1950 such land or portion, as the case may be, shall number be taken into account in companyputing the surplus area under the Act.
After a long time Dhanna Singh filed a revision on 19.11.1966 against the order dated 9.6.1961 of the Collector, declaring his land as surplus, but the same was dismissed by the Financial Commissioner, Revenue on 2.3.1967 on the ground of limitation as the same was beyond time by 1882 days.
He was initially allotted 79.39 standard acres of land in Village Budhlada, Tehsil Mansa, District Bhatinda which on account of report of Patwari in some Revenue Proceedings was reduced to 68.68 standard acres.
The Pepsu Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1955 hereinafter referred to as the Act had been amended by Act No.
In the year 1955, The Pepsu Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act was promulgated and section 3 thereof provides that the permissible limit shall mean thirty standard acres of land.
that the decision dated 9.1.1980 in CWP 3213 of 1968 be re called and the case be re decided after hearing the petitioners who are necessary parties to the said writ petition.
In this petition besides the above mentioned official respondents, Gurcharan Singh son of Dhanna Singh was also impleaded as respondent number4 as he had been substituted on account of death of his father during the pendency of CWP number3213 of 1968.
with Contempt P C No.415 of 1999 P. MATHUR,J. This appeal by special leave has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 4.6.1999 of a Full Bench of High Court of Punjab Haryana whereby Letters Patent Appeal preferred by respondent number4 Gurcharan Singh was allowed, the judgment and order dated 13.8.1992 of the learned Single Judge allowing the writ petition filed by the appellants Pohla Singh and others was set aside and the writ petition was dismissed.
Dhanna Singh father of Gurcharan Singh respondent number4 had been allotted land by way of a military grant in Sind Pakistan .
