IMPORTANT ORDERS PASSED

 

BY FCR AND OTHER OFFICERS

 

UNDER THE DPCR ACT 1954

 

CONTENTS

 

Sr. No.

Number of Cases

Title of the case

Order of

 

Checklist for revenue authorities

 

 

 

Summary of the orders

 

 

 

Letter to all the Deputy Commissioners

 

 

1.       

M.R. No. 20/1988-89

Gian Chand Vs State etc.

FCR

2.       

M.R. No. 34/1998

Mehnga Singh Vs State etc.

FCR

3.       

RPNo.6/GSP/1997/CSC

Mehnga Singh Vs S.C. & Ors

CSC

4.       

M.R. No. 42/1993-94

Harbhajan Singh etc. Vs State

FCR

5.       

M.R. No. 56/1998

Gian Chand etc. Vs CSC etc.

FCR

6.       

M.R. No. 26/ 1996-97

Banarsi Dass Vs State etc.

FCR

7.       

M.R. No. 40/1995-96

Suba Singh etc. Vs Krishan etc.

FCR

8.       

M.R. No. 77/1988-89

Madan Gopal Vs State etc.

FCR

9.       

M.R. No. 18/1997-98

Som Parkash Vs State etc.

FCR

10.   

M.R. No. 63/ 1990-91

Swaran Singh Vs Pb. State

FCR

11.   

M.R. No. 49/ 1997-98

Puran Chand Vs U.O.I.

FCR

12.   

M.R. No. 28/1996-97

Kuldip Singh Vs State

FCR

13.   

M.R. No. 5/1994-95

Tulsi Ram Vs C.S.C.

FCR

14.   

M.R. No.16/1992-93

Banarasi Dass Vs State

FCR

15.   

M.R. No.124/1986-87

Bachan Singh Vs Arur Singh

FCR

16.   

M.R. No. 13/1996-97

Parduman Singh Vs Kartar Singh

FCR

17.   

M.R. No. 14/2000

Gurmail Singh Vs CSC

FCR

18.   

M.R.No.14 of 1999

Surjit Singh etc. Vs Dalip Singh etc.

FCR

19.   

Order dated 14.11.2000

Allotment case Girdhari Lal

FCR

20.   

Order dated 13.9.2000

Allotment case of Hukam Singh

FCR

21.   

Order dated 14.12.2000

Allotment case of Mangla Ram

FCR

22.   

Order dated 26.12.2000

Allotment case of Niranjan Singh.

FCR

23.   

File No.6/CSC

State Vs Teja Singh etc.

CSC

24.   

M.R.98/Jal./96

Puran Chand etc Vs UOI

CSC

25.   

MO/HQ/2K/15

Order dated 10.9.2000

Karnail Singh etc. VsState of Punjab

MOHDQ

26.   

MO/HQ/2K/24

Order dated 20.11.2000

Hukam SinghVsState of Punjab.

MO††† HDQ

 

CHECK LIST FOR LAND ALLOTMENT CASES TO DISPLACED PERSONS

 

 

††††††††††† The displaced persons from Pakistan were allotted lands in lieu of landleft by them in Pakistan. Most of the work was over in 1950s. But even at present there are number of cases under DPCR Act pending with the revenue authorities at various levels. There is no end to the claims being filed under the Act. Cases of fraudulent claims have come to the notice of the department. At some places there are organized gangs of land grabbers engaged in the work of filing bogus claims and getting the land allotted in connivance with the rev4enue staff. The revenue officers therefore have to be very vigilant. Important orders passed by FCR and other officers under the Acthave been compiled in abook. The modus operandi and the techniques adopted by these persons have been prominentlyhighlighted in these orders. For the convenience of Revenue Officers the important check points which should be kept in view while decidingcases of land allotmentare summarized in the following paragraphs.

 

For the Managing Officer ( Headquarters )

 

o                   Why was the claim not filedbefore 31/12/1963, the time limit stipulated under Rule 67 A of the DPCR Rules? What prevented the displaced person from filing the claim in time ? Is there any justification for the delay ?

o                   Hasthe application beenfiled by the displaced person himself or his successor in interest? Has the applicantproved his relationship with the displaced person ? Is the pedigree table attested ? Did the displaced person die during the partition ?

o                   Is the applicant relying on the 1-D register in which the details of the land allotments made were given and which was not updated after 1965 or so ? Has the applicant given any other proof that he didnít file claim earlier ?

o                   Is the displaced person dead ? Is his death supported bya death certificate issued by the competent authority ?

o                   Was any claim filed earlier? Was any land allottedto the displaced person? What was the outcome of the application? Was the allotment cancelled? Has a copy of the certified order of cancellation been produced?Was this order final or some appeal etc is pending?

o                   Where was land allotted to the relations of the applicant? Where did the family of the displaced person settle after migration?

o                   Is the application filed by the displaced person/his successor in interest himself or their general power of attorney(GPA)? Is the person executing GPA alive? If not then the GPA is rendered infructous. Does the attorney know the whereabouts of the displaced person/his successor in interest? Can he produce them?

 

For Director Land Records

 

o                   Is the land record received from Pakistan kept in safe custody?

o                   Why is the applicant seeking a copy of Jamabandi received from Pakistan? Does he have any locus standi to obtain a copy?

o                   Can a copy of copy of Jamabandibeen given?

 

 

For Tehsildars/Settlement Commissioners/Chief Settlement Commissioners

 

o                   Is the claimant a displaced person/his successor in interest or their attorney? Can the GPA produce the displaced person / his successor in interest? Does he know about their whereabouts?

o                   Is the revenue record quite clear or has it been tempered with and interpolated?

o                   Was the claim verified in haste? Was the allotment made in haste? Was Goshwara allotment reverified from the MO ( Headquarters)?

o                   Is the land allotted rural or suburban/urban?†††††† Has urban/suburban land allotted in contravention of Rule 67A of the DPCR Rules?

o                   Is the land allotted agricultural i.e. land recorded as Barani/Chahi/Nehri/Banjar? Orghairmumkin land has been allotted for which there is no provision?

o                   Is the land allottedrecorded in the ownership of the rehabilitation department? Is it evacuee land? Doesnít it belong to provincial government etc?

o                   Was possession delivered to the allottees?

o                   Are the parties claiming to be bonafide vendees? Did they take adequate steps to verify the ownership of the vendors? Are they related to the vendors? Do the vendees exist or they are ghost parties? Did they play an active part in getting the land allotted?

o                   Is the applicant a lessee or sublessee sine 1/1/1956? Is he in continuous possession since then? Is he a displaced person? Can he be proved a displaced person? Is his name recorded in the lease register? Why did he not apply for transfer in time?

 

SUMMARY OF THE ORDERS

 

1.†††††††† MR No. 20/1988-89 : Gian Chand Vs. State etc.†††† FCR†† 6/7/1999

 

Land owned by Muslims; Bhagat Ram etc. recorded as Malguzars.

o       Claim of petitioner as sub lessee of urban evacuee land was upheld by CSC. Remaining land sold through auction. His objection against sale rejected by CSC andFCR. Case remanded by HC. Petitioner claimed that he purchased the remaining land from Malguzars.

o       Held- Malguzars were not occupancy tenants but they collected Land Revenue for which commission was paid (para 5). Property became evacuee after migration of Muslim owners and tenants (Para 5, 7). Having himself been allotted part of the land as lessee of sub urban evacuee land, he canít dispute the title of Central Govt. in the land and say that the remaining khasra number is not evacuee land.(Para 8).

 

2 †††††††† MR No. 34/1998 : Mehnga Singh Vs. State etc. FCR 14/9/1999

 

Rukmani Devi, a displaced person was allotted land in village Kamalpur. The allotment was cancelled in 1952 & fresh allotment made in village Dhariwal in 1953. The allotment in Kamalpur remained intact in Revenue records & land was sold to Baldev Singh etc. in 1957. Allotment of Kamalpur was cancelled when it came to notice. It was challenged by vendees Baldev Singh. Petition dismissed. Sale held to be bogus (Para 17)

 

3††††††††† No. 6/GSP/1997/CSC: Mehnga Singh Vs State CSC14/7/1998

 

Succession certificate granted in respect of amount lying deposited in a bank not sufficient to prove the petitioner as successor in interest of a displaced person.

 

4. MR No. 42/1993-94: Harbhajan Singh Etc. Vs. State : FCR 30/11/1999

 

Ishar Singh was allotted some land in Ludhiana district on the basis of Goshwara allotment dated 26/5/1987. He writes to DS (Reh.) that DC/Tahsildar Ludhiana was not allotting the balance land. DS (Reh.) asks Tahsildar (Phagwara) to allot the balance land in Ludhiana to Ishar Singh. Land is allotted on 25/7/1991. The Railways & Forest Dept. claimed that the land belonged to their department. CSC/DC cancelled the allotment & case comes to FCR. FCR held:

o       Tahsildar Phagwara was not competent to allot the land in Ludhiana Tahsil without a formal notification in Govt. Gazette (Para 11).

o       The land belonged to Railways and Patwaris report that the land was evacuee was of no consequence. (Para 7).

o       Parchi allotment was in favour of Ishar Singh and therefore petitioners Gurbachan Singh etc. could not be placed in the ownership column without sanction of mutation of inheritance of Ishar Singh (Para 9) Gurbachan Singh could not sell the land (Para 10) Vendees canít claim to be bonafide.

o       Parentage of allottees doubtful (Para 13)

o       Surjit Singh GPA of allottees is acting as attorney of a number of other claimants and specializing in filing belated allotments claims posing as partially unsatisfied claimants and have been getting these allotments on the basis of their links with the staff of Rehabilitation Department. (Para 14)

 

5.†††††††† MR No. 56/1998: Gian Chand etc. Vs. CSC etc. FCR25/4/2000

 

Urban evacuee plot ordered to be allotted to Hazara Ram in 1969 but amount not deposited. The belated claim of the respondents as his legal heirs rejected by Tahsildar in 1993. Gian Chand his close relation claimed to be in possession from 1986-1993 and damage charges were also deposited. SC and CSC set aside the order of Tahsildar & remanded the case to Tahsildar for deciding the claim of heirs of Hazara Ram first. Gian Chand approached the FCR. Held by FCR:

o       Heirs of Hazara Ram have no claim since they took no tangible steps to get the land allotted after making payment.

o       Gian Chand also doesnít have any claim. Payment of damage charges of no consequence. There is no evidence regarding the nature and duration of possession.

o       Retrieve the property & sell it through auction.

 

6.†††††††† MR No. 26/1996-97 Banarsi Dass Vs. State etc.FCR 23/5/2000

 

Petitioner was sold urban land in auction in 1961 but the amount was deposited in 1983. In the meantime land sold in auction in 1964 to Respondent who was also issued a sale certificate.

Held-†† Petitioner kept quite from 1961 to 1983 and no sale money deposited. Respondent has a valid sale certificate. Petition dismissed.

 

7.†††††††† MR No.40/1995-96: Suba Singh Vs. Krishan Baldev :FCR 25/7/2000

 

The petitioner purchased 51K-08M in open auction on 21/3/1959 and got possession on 23/4/1960. Amended Rules( Chapter V-A) enabling the lessees to get the land transferred were published in the gazette on 26/11/1960. Respondent applied on 22/7/1961 for transfer of 14K-5M claiming lessee wef 1/1/1956.

Held:††† Respondent has no claim. The amended Rules canít have retrospective effect. Petitioner was allotted land before the amended rules came into force.

 

8.†††††††† MR No.77/1988-89:†† Madan Gopal Vs. State etc. : FCR 14/12/1999

 

Petitioner Madan Gopal is stated to have been allotted land in 1967 but possession was not given. Wadhawa Singh was allotted land elsewhere & he sold land to respondent but this allotment was cancelled. Respondent Shivinder who was vendee of Wadhawa Singh stacked claim on the land allotted to petitioner on the ground that he was entitled to this land in lieu of cancelled allotment. held :

o       Petitioner- allottee not interested in the allotment since Hari Krishan Mukhtiar -GPA hasnít been successful in producing the allottee & therefore the allotment is cancelled. Hari Krishan is actually attorney of Harmel who allegedly got the GPA from Madan Gopal. (P 4)

o       Respondent vendee canít be allotted land. Land can be allotted to displaced persons alone and not to their vendees. Only the original allottee Wadhawa Singh could have been provided with alternative allotment and therefore allotment to Shivinder is cancelled.

 

9.†††††††† MR No. 18/1997-98:Som Parkash Vs. State etc.†† FCR 21/12/1999

 

Land allotted to Om Prakash, Inder Praksh in 1993 in Balachaur Tahsil. Challenged by respondent on the ground that the parties were bogus.

Held -

o       At the time of partition Tarlok Chand father of allottees was owner of the land as per Jamabandi of the village received from Pakistan. Goshwara could have been issued only in favour of Tarlok Chand and not in favour of Om Prakash, Inder Prakash. There is tempering in the Sajra Nasal attached to jamabandi. Tarlok Chand alone is owner of land in 1946-47.

o       Inder Prakash died but his LRs not brought on record. His GPA canít represent him.

o       The allot tees/their LRs were not produced before the Court. The parties are bogus & allotment is cancelled.

 

10.†††††† MR No. 63/1990-91:Swaran Singh Vs. Pb. State†† FCR 7/12/1999

 

Petitioner claims to be legal heirs of Gandu who was not heard of many years and whose mutation of inheritance was entered but not sanctioned. Petitioner not successful in tracing his relationship with Gandu. The pedigree table submitted by him differs from the pedigree table on the mutation sheet.

††††††††††† Claim dismissed.

11.†††††† MR No. 49/1997-98: Puran Chand Vs. U.O.I.†††††††† FCR 3/8/1999

( See the order of CSC dated 6/8/1999 at SN 24)

Land allotted to petitioners on the basis of their being lessees wef 1/1/1956 of urban land. Allotment cancelled on the complaint of Parent Teacher Association of an adjoining school. Matter went to CSC who impleaded the PTA as party. FCR held that -

o       PTA has been rightly impleaded as a party. It is in the interest of the petitioner that the controversy comes to rest once & for all.

o       In passing it was observed that Rule 119 of DPCR Rule 1955 bars appearance of legal representatives in proceedings under section 33 of DPCR Act.

 

12.†††††† MR No. 28/1996-97:Kuldip Singh Vs. State†††††††††† FCR 25/4/2000

(Also see the order of CSC dated 16/11/1994 at SN 23)

 

Central Govt. land acquired by Irrigation department for a canal. The canal was abandoned and this land was used for Wadala drain. The canal land was released from acquisition on 30/5/91 and allotted to displaced persons in October, 92. The allotment was cancelled by the CSC and petition of the vendees was dismissed by the FCR on the ground :

 

o       The letter dated 30/5/91 was an internal letter of the Revenue Department addressed to Irrigation Deptt. which was required to formally denotify the land. The letter dated 30/5/91 will not make the Irrigation Deptt. land as Central Govt. land. The land was recorded in the ownership of Irrigation Deptt. and therefore was not available for allotment.

o       The petitioners canít claim to be bonafide vendees. They got khasra girdawari corrected in their favour just before allotment and stated before the Tahsildar that they have no objection if the land was allotted to the allot tees. Their move was preplanned.

o       Land was recorded as Ghairmumkin in Jamabandi but was shown as Barani in the proposal for allotment.

o       Undue haste in allotment and its subsequent sale Ė case of conspiracy and bogus allotment.

 

13.†††††† MR No. 5/1994-95: †† Tulsi Ram Vs. CSC††††††††††††††† FCR3/8/1999

 

No formal orders of allotment. Patwari entered an un-authenticated and un-dated remark that Garibu was allotted land. Land purchased by the petitioner immediately thereafter. Allotment cancelled. Held by the FCR. It is a -

o       Case of fraudulent interpolation of Revenue record.

o       Petitioner not a bonafide vendee.

o       Land canít be allotted to him on the basis of possession.

 

14.†††††† MR No. 16/1992-93:Banarsi Dass Vs. State†††††††† FCR†† 4/1/2000

 

Raj Saw Mill in possession of land measuring 4K-1M in Pathankot City since 1959. Tahsildar, SC, CSC allotted the land to one of the partners in name. It was contested by one of two partners left out. The FCR held:

o       The firm has 3 partners & land canít be allotted to one partner.

o       The firm in possession, therefore land be allotted in favour of the firm.

 

15.†††††† MR No. 124/1986-87:Bachan Singh Vs. Arur Singh†††††††† FCR 21/12/1999

 

Held-

o       On the death of allottee, the GPA executed in favour of petitioner was renderedineffective and invalid.

o       The petitioner didnít disclose the death of allottee. Nor did he implead their legal heirs on record. The petitioner forged and fabricated the wills from the allot tees. Wills not genuine.

 

16.†††††† MR No. 13/1996-97: Parduman Singh Vs. Kartar Singh FCR 12/9/2000

 

Allotment of Sub-urban land:

o       Displaced person can not insist that excess land be sold to him. The allottee has to apply for allotment of excess area within 30 days of the cancellation.

o       An allottee whose allotment was cancelled canít donate the land to a trust.

o       Allot tees are fictitious and bogus. They did not appear and their addresses were found fake. The allotment was made by GPAs of GPAs of the allottees. The signatures of the allot tees on different document didnít match.

o       The contention of CSC that instruction prohibiting allotment of sub urban lands have no force of law, is wholly misplaced. Govt. competent to issue instructions. Besides Rule 6(2) Package Deal Rules specifically provides that sub urban lands will be disposed of through auction.

o       Vendees canít claim to be bonafide. The case revolves around the different attorneys, through and through. Vendees didnít appear and instead executed a GPA. When the allottee didnít contest the allotment in his favour, the question of any notice to be vendees didnít arise.

o       Counsel representing GPA of vendee was counsel for the allottees in the lower court. (Para 33)

 

17.†††††† MR No. 14/2000:†††††† Gurmail Singh Vs. CSC†††††††† FCR††††††††††††††† 23/5/2000

 

Land owned in 2 villages in Pakistan. Land of one village mortgaged in 1943 for 26 years. Land was allotted in India to the legal heirs of the landowner Gopal Dass in lieu of land left in Pakistan, including the land, which was mortgaged.

The allotment of land made in lieu of mortgaged land was cancelled when it was discovered that the mortgagees didnít migrate to India. Later one of the legal heirs of Gopal Dass viz Santosh Kumar managed to get the cancelled land allotted. This was subsequently cancelled by CSC. It was challenged before the FCR who held:

 

o       The petitioners did not disclose about the purchase of land in the cases filed by them earlier.

o       They concealed the fact that their MR had been dismissed earlier.

o       The legal heirs of the allottee didnít file Mutalba Araji for the land mortgaged by him in Pakistan. The legal heirs of Gopal Dass didnít deposit the mortgage money with the Custodian before 1954 and get the lands redeemed.

o       MO didnít care to ensure that the allotment was not made earlier to any other legal heir of Gopal Dass or whether Santosh Kumar was the sole surviving heir of Gopal Dass.

o       Vendees are frontmen of vendors and have been introduced to complicate the matter and to facilitate unlawful perpetuation of a fraudulent claim.

 

18.†††††† MR No. 14/2000: Surjit Singh etc. Vs Dalip Singh etc.†††††† FCR††† 30/5/2000

 

Allotment of land recorded as Rasta. Allotment cancelled. Held -

o       The allotment was managed by GPA. The GPA failed to discharge his onus to ensure the personal appearance of the original allottee.

o       The GPA is supposed to know the whereabouts and when directed to produce his principal.

o       Land recorded as a path/Rasta canít be allotted.

o       Petitioner canít claim to be a bonafide vendee. He purchased land recorded as Rasta and that too for a paltry sum.

o       Possession of the land allotted was given on 3/1/1989 and land sold on 16/1/1989.

 

19. Order u/s 33 DPCR Act : Allotment case Girdhari Lal†† FCR 14/11/2000

 

Case of new allotment in lieu of allotment wrongly cancelled. The FCR held that:

o       No merit in the application. It was not signed by the applicant but by the advocate only.

o       No proof of the earlier allotment having been cancelled.

o       Long delay of 37 years in making application for new allotment when the earlier allotment was said to have been cancelled 37 years ago.

o       The applicant did not appear inspite of direction from the Court.

o       Claim-bogus.

 

20. Order u/s 33 DPCR Act: Allotment case of Hukum Singh Ė FCR 13/9/2000

 

Claim of Hukum Singh rejected in 1959. Inder Singh GPA of Kartar Singh s/o Hukum Singh submitted an application in 1984 for allotment. MO declared him eligible for 23 St. Acres. Order set aside and case remanded. It was held by the FCR:

o       Delay of 25 years from 1959 to 1984 not explained. He was major at the time of partition and could have filed the claim. He didnít file the claim even by the deadline of 31/12/1963 prescribed under Rule 67 of DPCR Rules.

o       The MO didnít discuss the reason for change of option of Kartar Singh from Haryana to Punjab.

o       The genuineness of the claim was not verified but it was based only on the chhant Jamabandi.

o       Hukum Singhís claim was rejected in 1959 because he didnít file ďMutalba claimí. Other formalities prescribed under the East Punjab Refugee (Registration of Land Claim) Act, 1948 not completed.

o       No death certificate of Hukum Singh on file. His succession and Kartar Singh being the sole heir not verified.

o       Hukum Singh kept quite after 1959 and Kartar Singh became active after 25 years at the age of 55 in 1984.

 

21. Order u/s 33 DPCR Act: Allotment case of Mangla Ram Ė FCR 14/12/2000

 

Allottment to Mangla Ram cancelled in 1959 on the ground that he wanted cash compensation. File remained in process till 1963. Tek Chand claiming to successor in-interest of Mangla Ram filed the application in 1996 and allotment allowed in 1998. Orders set aside by the FCR and held that:

o       Application not signed by the applicant but signed only by the advocate.

o       Parentage of Mangla Ram mentioned differently on different papers

o       His successions not verified. He died in 1973 and his son died on 1992. Tek Chand made application in 1996.

o       Long delay of 33 years not explained.

 

22.†††††† Order u/r 33 DPCR Act:Allotment case of Niranjan Singh - FCR††††††††††† 26/12/2000

 

Lands allotted in 1948 to three brothers. In 1987 legal heir of the one of the brothers submits an application that the brothers were allotted less area. MO accepts the application in 1991 and more land allotted. Order of MO set aside: Held

o       Land allotted in 1948 and the allot tees didnít point out any deficiency. Very strange that 3rd generation pointing out the deficiency.

o       Serious discrepancies about the LRs of the brothers.

o       Application filed on the basis of photocopies of stray documents obtained from the office of Director, LandRecords.

o       Long delay of 39 years not explained.

 

23.†††††† No. 6/CSC††† State Vs. Teja Singh etc.†††††† CSC/KPT 16/11/1994

(See the orders of FCR at SN 12 above)

Order of Tahsildar allotting land set-aside by CSC

o       Urban land canít be allotted to migrants from Pakistan (Instructions dated 12/8/1970).

o       Land belonged to Punjab Govt. in the Irrigation Department and therefore was not available for allotment.

o       Allot tees were not given possession which was mandatory u/r 58 of DPCR Rules.

o       Land allotted with within 15 days of application-A case of undue haste.

o       Land sold without the permission of Government in violation of Rule 102 of DPCR Rules.

o       Land was Ghairmumkin and therefore couldnít have been allotted.

o       Ghairmumkin land was wrongly mentioned as Barani in the allotment proposal.

o       Land allotted in 4 cases without any Goshwara allotment.

o       Vendees bought drain land and voluntarily Ďsurrenderedí possession to the allottees just before allotment Ė canít claim to be bonafide vendees. They wanted to regularize their illegal occupation of drain land.††††††††

 

 

24.†††††† MR/98/Jal/96 Puran Chand, Kapur Chand CSC †††† 6/8/1999††††††††† Vs. U.O.I.

 

Urban land allotted to the petitioner on the basis of their being sub lessees wef 1/1/1956. Allotment set aside by CSC and held -

o       Name of lessee not recorded, therefore there canít be any sub lessee.

o       Parents name of Karam Chand Ďsub lesseeí recorded differently in Khasra Girdawari Register of different periods.

o       ĎSub lesseeí recorded as Ghair Marusi.

Land recorded as Banjar Kadim and therefore could not have been allotted.

 

25. No. MO/HQ/2K/15 Karnail Singh etc Vs State of Pb. MO 18/9/2000 S.S.Khara

 

Application submitted in 1998 for allotment of land in lieu of lands in Pakistan. On perusal of Jamabandi received from Pakistan it was found that the govt. land was given on lease for reclamation to the applicants and for their failure to deposit the rent, the lease was cancelled.

Hence- No merit in the application

 

26. No. MO/HQ/2K/24 Hukam Singh Vs. State of Pb. MO 20/11/2000†† SS Khara

 

Land allotted to a migrant and allotment incorporated in Revenue Record. After his death the land was sold by the GPA. Sons of the allottee wanted the allotment to be cancelled. Held by MO:

 

o       Role of Rehabilitation Department over after allotment.

o       Any subsequent fraudulent act canít be rectified by it.

 

GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB

DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE & REHABILITATION

(LEGAL POLICY BRANCH)

 

To†††††††

††††††††††††††††††††††† All Deputy Commissioner in the State

††††††††††††††††††††††† & Director Land Records, Punjab, Jalandhar.

 

††††††††††††††††††††††† Memo. No. 20/1/2001/PL-II/260-61

††††††††††††††††††††††† Chandigarh, dated the 10/1/2001.

 

Subject: -†††††††† Administration of D.P.(C&R) Act. Ė disposal of pending claims/cases.

 

 

††††††††††††††††††††††† Although Rule 67-A of D.P. (C&R) Rule 1955 places a bar on registration of fresh claims for compensation in lieu of property left in Pakistan after 31st December 1963 groups of land brokers operating in different districts in complicity with some officials of the department have devised a number of corrupt practices to circumvent the law.Most of these cases come in the garb of partially satisfied claims, in some cases the claimants admit to having received the possession of the land but claim fresh allotment on grounds of subsequent cancellation, or voluntary abandonment leading to its occupation by or allotment to someone else.

 

2.†††††††††††††††††††† Some communications were addressed to you earlier also to prepare an inventory of Government lands including Compensation Pool Property and to guard against Government land passing into private hands through fake allotment letters and conveyance deeds presented for registration.Some Deputy Commissioners have evinced interest in the subject and made inquiries as to how to detect and tackle cases of fraudulent and repeat allotments and to retrieve the Government property.In this connection set of some selected orders passed by F.C.R., Chief Settlement Commissioners and other functionaries under the D.P. (C&R) Act, is being sent alongwith this letter. These orders though illustrative in nature, reflect various facets of the problems generated by false and repeat claims pressed before different forums.Some of these orders are under challenge while others have attained finality.Even if some decisions are set aside or cases are remanded by Courts, these would have served a useful purpose in revealing the modus operandi adopted for preparing fraudulent claims.

 

3.†††††††††††††††††††† As we all know, majority of the claims of the migrants had been settled by 1960 and thereafter the Central Government through successive Package Deals commencing 1961 transferred the balance evacuee pool lands, rural as well as urban, to the State Government for such disposal, as it deemed fit.Consequently the State Govt. enacted the Package Deal Properties (Disposal) Act, 1976 and also framed rules thereunder. As the said Act recognizes the rights of unauthorised occupants and the Punjab Village Common Lands Acts 1961 provides for management of certain types of ďMutrukaĒ shamlat properties by the Panchayats, a large number of the claims got locked in multiparty (multiple) litigation.†† Rather it is this phenomenon of rival claims that led to detection of fraudulent allotments in a number of cases. Since fresh claims were not being entertained under DP(C&R) Act., new practices emerged. In some cases lands were allotted on the basis of forged Goshwaras/parchis circulating in the field.That some of these were duly forwarded from the Headquarters seemingly as a matter of routine shows the extent of complicity and collusion.In 1993 the department was forced to even register cases against its own staff. Yet in other cases unauthenticated and undated entries were detected even in the record lying at Jalandhar showing cancellation of previous allotments.In a large number of cases, allotments were made by Managing Officers on the basis of such entries.In other cases, repeat allotments were made in different villages against the same claim after manoeuvring loss or destruction of previous record or clandestine removal of allotment parchies.As graded cut was applied to quantify land, attempts to downgrade the classification in order to get larger area are also discernible in quite a large number of cases.In some cases in genuine allottees took possession of the land quickly but avoided entry in the revenue record and sought repeat allotment even by removing parchies and noting from the files.Fake Powers of Attorneys were prepared mostly in the name of dead persons or persons killed during Partition by members of different property dealer groups.In a number of cases organised gangs of land brokers have been found to be holding a number of Power of Attorneys for more than one claimant.At the same time, a number of people have been found holding. Power of Attorney simultaneously on behalf of a single claimant without cancellation of the previous attorneys.†† There are a number of instances where a General Power of Attorney has appointed another Power of Attorney who in turn has appointed a General Power of Attorney or a Special Power of Attorney, although such attorneys have no legal right to represent the allottees.Since fake allotments are procured for making quick money, in many cases,these properties were disposed of almost immediately.At times these sales were made to unsuspecting vendees, at others they were made to frontmen/relatives of the fake allottees, solely with a view to generate multiplicity of litigation and confuse the matter by involving more people.

 

4.†††††††††††††††††††† Another practice commonly followed was to apply to the Rehabilitation Authorities at Jalandhar (later on Director Land Records) for a copy of the jamabandi from Pakistan in the name of any particular claimant who had common name with one of the ancestors of the applicant.Since some officials of the D.L.R were party to the deal, they would readily oblige with a copy and help the applicant in filing a bogus claim in the name of his/her ancestor.Confirmatory endorsement to the claim was provided through report by another official of D.L.R. made on the basis of ďno entryĒ in register I-D, which was a record of allotments, made to displaced persons.We all are aware that register I-D, which was prepared by Directory Organisation after physical verification of the quasi-permanent allotments was not updated after 1961-62 and this became the root cause of repeat allotments against the same claim. A number of bogus claims filed belatedly owe their origin to gaps in I-D registers.Easy access to directory Organisation after the initial rush of claims had subsided and after claims ceased to be settled in gatherings of affected people contributed to a number of fresh claims being generated in a clandestine manner. In fact most of the claims, allegedly partially satisfied, were fabricated belatedly on the basis of copies of record obtained from Rehabilitation Office, Jalandhar in the names ofdeceased allottees who could not contradict.

 

5.†††††††††††††††††††† Apart from cases founded on misrepresentation and concealment of facts, you will find that, some allotments were made by misinterpreting Acts, rules and Govt. instructions.†† Besides, in a number of cases, various types of rights over the land left in Pakistan were involved e.g. the mortgager did not pay mortgage money nor did he get the land redeemed before partition from the Muslim mortgages who remained in Pakistan or unauthorized occupants applied for land posing as refugees, lessees or sub lessees and in some cases malguzars staked claim to alternative allotment at par with mortgagees or lessees.Complicated issues of law arising out of complex mixture of various rights over the land were not resolved before making allotment in order to give undue benefit to some parties.The orders passed by Managing Officers in such cases are cryptic and reveal more than they conceal.

 

6.†††††††††††††††††††† The enclosed set of orders is illustrative of the techniques adopted for procuring fraudulent allotments.The various modus operandi listed above came out quite predominantly in some of these cases.It is, therefore, hoped that the real life situations which have been reflected in these orders will assist you in making proper appreciation of the claims pending in the field and would guide you and your field officers in taking a comprehensive view of the issues associated with these allotments and enable you to also appreciate why more than 50 years after Partition the matter is being kept alive.It will be evident that the bulk of the claims were generated on account of the fact that the Deputy Commissioners were kept completely out of picture although they enjoy vast revisional powers under Section 24 of the D.P. (C&R) Act.Their role was just peripheral and they had virtually no hand in determining the genuineness of the claim, this marginalisation of the Deputy Commissionersí led to lack of supervision.It would be noted the bulk of the correspondence was carried on between the M.O. headquarters and the MOs in the field.

 

7.†††††††††††††††††††† The main purpose in circulating this compilation of orders is to apprise you of the tactics adopted by groups/individuals indulging in illegal deals concerning rehabilitation lands.It is due to collusion between land dealers and undesirable elements in the Govt. that rehabilitation claims are alive in full or partial form even 53 years after the Partition of the country.††† This includes claims relating to transfer of land to lessees and sub lessees under Rule 34-D of the D.P. (C&R) Rules 1955, most of these cases had availed land limit long ago worth Rs. 15000/-.Instances have come to light where the forefathers of such lessees/sub-lessees had availed of this offer, but taking advantage of non linking of old record requests for transfer of some other chunk of land has been made belatedly by the alleged successors.In certain cases old record has been tampered with to show the claimant as a lessee/sub-lessees without supporting papers and without reason for delay for the omission.

8.†††††††††††††††††††† You may therefore carry out a detailed review of the cases pending with various functionaries of your districts under D.P. (C&R) Act and have these thoroughly scrutinized to detect bogus and duplicate claims and to expedite settlement of genuine claims.Under DP(C&R) Act., 1954 (Section 4) and D.P.(C&R) Rules 1955 (Rule 4 refers), the applicants were required to provide a very detailed information before their claims were processed.This format must be kept in view by the Tehsildars-cum-M.O. and other functionaries while verifying the genuineness of the claim and veracity of the claimants.As you know jurisdiction of civil courts is barred.Therefore the relevant provision of the Act must be brought into notice of the subordinate Courts whenever necessary.At the same time there may be some cases where the Honíble High Court has given certain directions regarding their disposal.You may have such cases examined thoroughly to expedite the decisions and ensure compliance of Court orders.There are other cases which are pending in the High court where replies have still not been filed.In a number of cases favourable orders have been procured by non-existing claimants/their attorneys for the simple reason that no reply was filed.

9.      ††††††††††††††††† With this objective in view the following action is advised : -

i)                    A comprehensive list of pending cases under the Displaced Persons (C&R) Act., 1954 including those relating to allotment on the basis of lease/sub-lease and disputes relating to auction as also miscellaneous applications, ostensibly filed under the said Act, be got prepared within a period of one week.Government had earlier also asked for such lists to be prepared but it did not receive the necessary attention.Hence the urgency!

It is in the knowledge of Deputy Commissioners that Sales Clerks/Kanungos have been posted in all the districts as also in the Tehsil headquarters.Some of them have been on these seats for years.There is no reason why the information should not be maintained up-to-date and provided to you in much lesser period.

ii)                   There is no occasion for generation for new claims in the field.Therefore, all such claims would have to be scrutinized to your satisfaction.You may require the Managing Officers to submit to you through your SDMs any goshwara/order received, purported to have been issued by the headquarter.Requests for implementation of old orders come under this category- it was observed in a case that a fresh application was filed for implementation of an order dated 1967 and allotment was promptly made by one of the Managing Officers in 1996 without asking any question.

iii)                 As already indicated a number of cases have been lost on account of non-filing of replies in the High Court/Supreme Court.Similarly false claims got sanctified in the recent.They were left to be defended by the officials who were guilty of such discretion.You may, therefore, scrutinise all cases pending in the High Court/Supreme Court and have suitable replies filed under your supervision.In case there is a suspicion regarding the genuineness of any claim the same should be scrutinized thoroughly under the Revisional powers conferred on you.It may also be desirable to insist on a list of cases pending in various courts (in the High court/Supreme Court) and scrutinize the replies already given and take remedial measure where required.It has already been mentioned that subordinate Civil Court have no jurisdiction under the Displaced Persons (C &R) Act., and this point would have to be highlighted to prevent intervention by civil courts on matters pertaining to allotment, eligibility etc.

 

( Satish Chandra ) †††††††

Special Secretary to Govt. Punjab,

††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††† Revenue Department.

 

Contents†††††††††† Next