IN THE COURT
OF MRS. SHYAMA MANN,IAS, FINANCIAL COMMISSIONER REVENUE, PUNJAB,
CHANDIGARH.
Banarsi Dass son of Sudha Ram son of Mula Ram resident of 38, Manjit Nagar, Basti Guzan, Jalandhar.
…..Petitioner.
1. State of Punjab.
2. Madan Lal son of Durga Dass resident of WJ-193 Basti Guzan, Jalandhar.
3. Tarlok Nath son of Durga Dass, resident of W.L.-218, Basti Guzan, Jalandhar.
….Respondents.
Present: Sh.G.S.Nagra,Advocate, counsel for the petitioner.
Sh.S.P.Soi,Advocate, counsel for the respondents.
1. In this petition u/s 33 of the Displaced Persons (C & R) Act, 1954 the petitioner has challenged the order of the Chief Settlement Commissioner, Jalandhar dated 6.3.97. The claim of the petitioner is that Shop No.25 (khola) Basti Guzan, Jalandhar City, described in the petition was put to auction on 24.10.59 being acquired evacuee/ownership of the Central Government. It was purchased by one Sudha Ram son of Mula Ram as highest bidder for Rs.650/- who deposited the earnest money of Rs.65/- on the same day and, the balance amount alongwith interest amounting to Rs.1782/- on 30.8.83. Sudha Ram was in possession of the plot and after his death the petitioner, his son and successor is in continuous possession of this property. To the surprise of the petitioner one Tarlok Nath son of Durga Dass, respondent No.3 tried to take forcible possession of this plot claiming himself to be the vendee of respondent No.2 alleged auction purchaser of this property. No file relating to auction in the record.
2. On behalf of the respondents it is argued that although the petitioner alleges that the property was put to auction on 24.10.59 but he has not been able to explain under what circumstances he deposited Rs.1782 on 30.8.83 i.e. after a period of 24 years from the date when the earnest money was first paid by Sudha Ram. The respondent alleges that when Sudha Ram failed to deposit auction amount the auction in his favour was cancelled and the property was put to fresh auction in which Madan Lal was the highest bidder on 2.1.64. The respondents stated that this explains why the sale certificate dated 24.3.64 is in the name of the respondent No.2 and the petitioner has still not been able to bring any sale certificate on record. The respondent has further alleged that the petitioner had lost his case for permanent injunction in the Civil Courts both at the initial and appellate stage and findings of the Civil Court are categorical in respect of the possession being that of the respondent. During the life time of Sudha Ram there was no challenge to the title of the respondent. The petitioner is a property dealer and has not filed any document on record to show that he is son of Sudha Ram, the alleged auction-purchaser.
3. I
have heard the counsel for the parties and also gone through the record. The claim of the petitioner that there is no
file relating to auction dated 2.1.64 traceable in record led to the inevitable
scrutiny of the remaining papers relating to auction/alienation of this
property in minute detail. This
scrutiny does not strengthen the case of the petitioner in any manner. Rather, it weakens his case still
further. Apart from the fact that the
pages of this file have been renumbered repeatedly it is found that no activity
is recorded on the file between 18.4.61 and 8.3.83. The letter dated 18.4.61 directs Sudha Ram son of Mula Ram to
deposit the balance purchase money within 15 days and further to attend the
office of the Rehabilitation authorities in proof of such deposit, if any,
failing which it would be presumed that he has not deposited the balance purchase
money and 10% earnest money would be forfeited. This notice was preceded by similar notices earlier also. The
next series of letters are dated 1983 and they are addressed to one Sunder Dass
son of Ganga Ram. There is no letter
from Sudha Ram or Banarsi Dass between 1959 and 1993 seeking to deposit the
money or wanting extension in time for making any payment. Rather, when the file was revived as per
noting dated 4.7.83 Sudha Ram son of Mula Ram was required to attend office on
19.7.83 on which date he failed to appear.
Without anyone appearing in office the total amount of arrears were
calculated by the office as Rs.1782 and these were shown as deposited on
30.8.83. There is not a single
application of Sudha Ram son of Mula Ram who stated to have died in 1984 and
was thus alive at that time, seeking permission to deposit the amount after
such a long gap. After getting the
money deposited on 30.8.83 the file remained in hibernation for another 9
years. Suddenly on 15.2.93 Banarsi Dass
appeared on the scene requesting for issue of conveyance deed in his
favour. He produced photo copies of
letter dated 2.1.1960 and 18.4.61 alongwith receipt dated 30.8.1983. He also filed a Civil Suit against the
present respondents before the Sub Judge IInd Class seeking permanent
injunction against them. He lost the
case in the Civil Court on 7.4.93, whereafter he filed a revision petition
before the Chief Settlement Commissioner, Jalandhar against the “bogus and
fictitious sale certificate allegedly issued on 24.3.64” with respect to the
disputed property. In the petition u/s
33 before me the petitioner has stated that the jurisdiction of the Civil Court
is barred under Section 36 of the Act.
Moreover it is alleged that in the Civil court it was a suit for permanent
injunction and not for title and thus Chief Settlement Commissioner has failed
to pass the order independently. The
order of the Civil Court reveals that it is the petitioner who had approached
the Civil Court in the first instance.
He has not been able to refute the finding of fact recorded by the Civil
Court that the petitioner had no proof of either being in possession, or having
a sale certificate in his favour.
4. No explanation is forthcoming for the erratic behavior of the petitioner and his having woken from slumber for the first time in 1993 and for not having deposited the balance money and seeking issue of conveyance deed all these long years. Rather the missing pages and total silence first for 24 years and later for 9 years leads to the suspicions that these pages had been removed deliberately to confuse the matter. On the other hand the respondent has a validly executed sale deed in his possession while no sale deed is available in respect of the petitioner. The inescapable conclusion is that the petitioner’s case is devoid of any merit and the petition is dismissed accordingly.
Announced.
(Shyama Mann)
Chandigarh,dated Financial Commissioner Revenue,
the 23rd May, 2000. Punjab.
IN THE COURT OF MRS.
SHYAMA MANN, IAS, FINANCIAL COMMISSIONER REVENUE, PUNJAB, CHANDIGARH.
Review Application No.3 of 1996-97
IN
1. Suba Singh,
2. Darbara Singh,
3. Sardara Singh
sons of Virsa Singh,
4. Gurcharan Kaur daughter of Virsa Singh,
all residents of village Asman Khera, Tehsil and Distt. Ferozepur.
……Petitioners
1. Krishan Baldev,
2. Madan Mohan
3. Surinder Mohan
sons of Hari Chand
all residents of Abohar, District Ferozepur.
…..Respondents.
Present: Sh. S.C.Khunger, Advocate, counsel for the petitioners.
Sh. Shiv Kumar, Advocate, counsel for the respondents.
1. The brief facts of this case are that land measuring 10 bighas 8 biswas (51 kanal 8 marla) comprising khasra No.532 situated in village Alamgarh, Tehsil Abohar, District Ferozepur belonging to Central Government was sold in open auction to one Lal Singh on 21.3.1959 and as per the claim of the petitioner the possession was also delivered vide Rapat Roznamcha No.422 dated 23.4.1960. Thereafter one Hari Chand, Predecessor-in-interest of the respondents, claiming to be in possession of the land measuring 2 bighas 17 biswas (14 kanal 5 marlas) out of khasra No.532 as a lessee filed an application on 22.7.1961 for allotment of this land in terms of amended Displaced Persons (C & R) Rules,1960. His application was rejected by the District Rent & Managing Officer, Ferozepur on 24.10.1961 on the ground that his lease was not renewed after 1957. Hari Chand filed an appeal against this order which was dismissed by the Settlement Commissioner on 28.6.1962. Thereafter he filed a revision petition before the Chief Settlement Commissioner, who held vide his order dated 20.10.1962, that since Hari Chand had got the lease renewed he was entitled to the transfer of the area claimed by him. Pursuantly, Hari Chand applied for demarcation of his portion of khasra No.532. It was at this stage that Virsa Singh (father of the petitioners and successor-in-interest of Lal Singh) made an application that as he had already purchased the entire khasra No.532 no agreement for sale with Hari Chand could be entered into. His prayer was, however, rejected by the Settlement Commissioner on 14.1.1963. The value of 2 bighas 17 biswas of land was assessed as 7,182/- rupees and Hari Chand deposited an initial amount of Rs.1,437/- (being 20% of the assessed value) in the Govt. Treasury on 15.4.1968. Virsa Singh, thereafter, filed a revision petition which was dismissed on 30.3.1972 on the ground that the earlier order dated 20.10.1962 had not been challenged by him (Virsa Singh). This was followed by an application under section 33 of the Displaced Persons (C & R) Act, 1954 before the Financial Commissioner (Taxation), Punjab who remanded the case on 8.1.1975.
2. Thereafter followed a series of orders at the level of the Managing Officer-cum-Tehsildar, the Settlement Commissioner and the Chief Settlement Commissioner expressing divergent views on the value of the land and the area Hari Chand was entitled to. Ultimately in his report dated 12.12.1983 the Tehsildar is said to have assessed the reserve price of land measuring 2 bighas 17 biswas at Rs.69,100. It was held that since according to chapter V-A of the Displaced Persons (Compensation & Rehabilitation) Rules, a lessee could purchase land upto the value of Rs.15,000/- Hari Chand could be allotted 6 kanals 7 marlas and not more. However, the Settlement Commissioner on 7.10.1985 ordered transfer of 14 kanals 5 marlas (2 bighas 7 Biswas) land out of khasra No.532 to Hari Chand and the remaining to Virsa Singh. The matter remained under litigation between the parties and ultimately on 30.5.96 the Chief Settlement Commissioner, Ferozepore accepted the appeal of Hari Chand and allotted him 14 kanals 5 marlas of land instead of 6 kanals 7 marlas calculated by the Tehsildar and allowed by the Settlement Commissioner on 26.9.95 and further ordered that this be given to him after payment at the rate of current reserve price prevailing in May, 1996. This price was required to be worked out by Tehsildar.
The matter went in revision before the Financial Commissioner, Revenue, Sh.C.D.Cheema who upheld the order of the Chief Settlement Commissioner on 23rd July,1996. The said order was challenged before the Punjab & Haryana High Court by the present petitioners where it was set aside with the following observations on 9.10.1996:-
“Contends that the Rules entitled the respondents to purchase land on the dint of their occupation alone, came into being on 26.11.1960 whereas auction of the land in question had taken place on 25.3.1959 and, therefore, the respondents did not have any right as the rules could not apply retrospectively. Mr. Khunger further states that this point was taken and raised as well but the Financial Commissioner has not dealt with the same.
We dispose of this petition by permitting the petitioner to make an application for review and get decision on the point aforesaid if the same was actually raised before the Financial Commissioner.”
The present Review application has been filed by the petitioners in pursuance of the orders of the Hon’ble High Court.
3. The main issue revolves around the provisions of Chapter V-A of the Displaced Persons (C & R) Rules, 1955 and Rule 34-C introduced thereunder by an amendment in 1960, and its applicability. The case of the petitioners is that the land comprising khasra No.532 and measuring 10 bighas 8 biswas situated in village Alamgarh, Tehsil Abohar, District Ferozepur owned by the Central Govt., was sold in open auction to Lal Singh father of Virsa Singh on 21.3.59 and the possession of the land was also delivered to him vide Rapat Roznamacha No.422, dated 23.4.1960. The jurisdiction of the Municipal Council, Abohar was extended and the said land fell in the jurisdiction of the Council and it was treated as Urban agricultural land. Thereafter the amended Rules 1960 came into force under which urban agricultural land could be transferred to lessees/sub-lessees if certain conditions were satisfied. In pursuance of this amendment Hari Chand, predecessor-in-interest of Respondents 1 to 3, made an application on 22.7.61 for transfer of the area measuring 2 bighas 17 biswas which was a part of khasra No.532. He claimed that he was a lessee w.e.f. January, 1956 and he was entitled to the allotment of the said land. This application was rejected by District Rent and Managing Officer, Ferozepur, vide order dated 24.10.61.
The case of the petitioners is that rules 34-A to 34-H of the amended Rules which authorises the allotment of evacuee agricultural land situated in urban areas to lessees/sub-lessees came into being through notification published in the gazette of India dated 26.11.1960. It was a consequence of the said notification that Hari Chand, predecessor-in-interest of Respondents No.1 to 3 made an application for allotment of the said land. It has been argued that it is well settled law that a statute is not to be construed to operate retrospectively so as to take away or impair a vested or substantive right, unless that intention is made manifest by language so plain and unmistakable that there is no possibility of any choice of meanings. Under these circumstances Hari Chand could not be allotted the said land measuring 14 kanals 5 marlas which already stood auctioned according to Rule 67 of the Rules and the possession of which had already been delivered much before the date of the application filed by Hari Chand. It is further argued that Rules 34-A to 34-H of the Displaced Persons (C & R) Rules, under which Hari Chand applied on 22.7.61, came into existence on 26.11.1960, whereas possession was delivered to the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners, even prior to that. Thus, they had acquired a vested interest in the land and the said rules could not be made applicable in the present case to the detriment of the petitioners. Mention has also been made in this Review petition to the rulings cited as AIR 1975 S.C. 2275 and AIR 1980 S.C. 1306 where similar interpretation was given in respect of Rule 30 of the Rules (since deleted). The counsel for the petitioners has also argued that although the land measuring 14 kanals 5 marlas out of the total land comprised in khasra No.532 had been shown as leased out to the said Hari Chand, the latter never remained in actual physical possession but had sub-leased it to one Khiali Ram and this fact is also borne out from a perusal of the khasra girdawari from Sauni 1953 to Sauni 1959. Since the proviso to Rule 34-C clearly lays down that where any such land or part thereof has been sub-leased to a displaced person and the sub-lessee has been in occupation of such land or part thereof continuously from 1.1.56 then such land shall be allotted to such sub-lessee, even in this view of the matter Hari Chand had no right for allotment of the said land and Khiali Ram never applied for any allotment. It is also argued before me that, admittedly, Hari Chand was not in possession as he repeatedly made requests for delivery of possession as evident from his various applications on record dated 6.7.65, 29.4.68 and 15.3.73.
4. On behalf of the Respondents it has been agitated that Chapter V-A was inserted after Chapter V of the Displaced Persons (Compensation & Rehabilitation) Rules through and amendment and Rule 34 of the said Chapter clearly states that a person who is lessee since 1.1.1956 can be allotted land upto the value of Rs.10,000/- (later revised to Rs.15,000/-). Since the predecessor-in-interest of the respondents i.e. Hari Chand was a lessee of the land in dispute he was allotted land measuring 2 bighas 17 biswas (14 kanals 5 marlas) whose value worked out to Rs.7,182/- in 1961 and he deposited the amount. The Tehsildar, Sales vide his order dated 12.12.1983 categorically stated in his report that Hari Chand was a lessee from 1.1.1956 to 23.4.69. Since the Rule, though inserted in 1960 provided for allotment to displaced persons who were lessees since 1.1.1956, the intention of the legislature was evidently to make this amendment applicable retrospectively.
It has been argued that from a perusal of the Rule 34-C the intention of the legislature is very clear that the persons who were lessees since 1.1.1956 are entitled to get allotment upto the value of Rs.10,000/-. The respondents maintain that the scope of the present review is limited in that the Hon’ble High Court has directed the Financial Commissioner Revenue to decide only whether the amended rules are applicable with retrospective effect or not and no other issue is to be taken up at this stage.
It has been stated in the written reply to the review application that the predecessor-in-interest of the respondents made an application dated 22.7.1961 to the District rent and Managing Officer for the allotment of the land measuring 2 bighas 17 biswas as he was a lessee since 1.1.1956. His application was rejected on 24.10.61. Then he filed an appeal before the Settlement Officer which was also dismissed. Then he filed a revision petition before the Chief Settlement Commissioner who accepted the same vide his order dated 20.10.1962. The settlement Commissioner vide his order dated 14.1.1963 cancelled the sale of plot in favour of Virsa and allowed the transfer of 2 bighas 17 biswas (14 kanals 5 marlas) out of the total land measuring 10 bighas 8 biswas (50 kanals 8 marlas) the value of which was assessed at 7,182/- rupees 20% of the amount i.e. Rs.1437/- was deposited on 15.4.68. At the time of demarcation of the land the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners filed objections which were rejected by the Settlement Commissioner and thereafter a revision petition was also rejected by the Chief Settlement Commissioner on 30.7.72 on the ground that he had not challenged the earlier order dated 20.10.62. Thus the order dated 20.10.62 had attained finality and the petitioners could not challenge the subsequent orders. The Learned Financial Commissioner Revenue, Sh.C.D.Cheema had rightly held vide his order dated 23.7.96 that as per report of Tehsildar dated 12.12.1983 Hari Chand was a lessee from 1.1.1956 to 23.4.69 and the respondents are, therefore, entitled to land measuring 2 bighas 17 biswas.
5. I have heard the arguments of the parties and have also gone through the record. I do not agree with the view taken by the counsel for the respondents that the scope of the review is restricted to the legal point. Since law cannot be interpreted in a vacuum, a detailed scrutiny of the record to determine the facts in the light of the legal position is inevitable. I have before me the file in which land was auctioned to Virsa Singh on 21.3.1959, as also the file in which Hari Chand predecessor-in-interest of the respondents, applied for allotment of a part of Khasra No.532 min. The fact that Khasra No.532 measuring 10 bighas 8 biswas (51 kanal 8 marlas) was auctioned on 21.3.1959 has not been disputed. Similarly the fact that Hari Chand applied on 22.7.61 for allotment of a part of khasra No.532 (2 bighas 17 biswas) on 22.7.61 is also not disputed. It is also not disputed that the amended rules were published in the Gazette on 26.11.60. The record shows that the value of claim of Lal Singh father of Virsa Singh was assessed at Rs.1,09,425/-. Lal Singh is shown as having offered a bid of Rs.22500/- for Khasra No.532 and was adjudged the highest bidder. Lal Singh is shown to have purchased another plot No.78 for an amount of Rs.7100/-. As per record his claim was adjusted against these purchases and nothing was due from him on 31.3.59. The application of Hari Chand shows that he had applied for allotment of this land under the amended Rules, 1960. It is also admitted that the Rules came into operation only on 26.11.60 and the application of Hari Chand was dated 22.7.1961. Thus it is evident that full payment for auction had been received well before Hari Chand even became eligible. This auction had become final, and Lal Singh had become the owner of the entire area of the disputed Khasra No.532. Therefore, to hold that Hari Chand’s claim, if any, created through a notification dated 26.11.60, would get preference over Lal Singh’s right created in 1959 would be taking an erroneous view of the matter. The transaction in relation to auction to Lal Singh had been completed well before the rule came into force on 26.11.60, and the fait accompli cannot be disturbed not withstanding the subsequent amendment.
6. A reading of the application of Hari Chand shows that he did not mention the fact that auction had already taken place on 21.3.59 in favour of Lal Singh. He ingeniously wrote in his application at Sr.No.4 of the proforma that he was a lessee, and Sh.Khiali Ram etc. were sub-lessees but they were non-Pakistanis and they had not applied for this land. Again at Sr.No.5 of his application he wrote that sub-lessees are local and that they had not applied for land. He applied for only 2 bighas 17 biswas out of khasra No.532. While rejecting his application dated 22.7.61, it was recorded that the lessees had not got the lease renewed after 1957 and he had no interest in the transfer of any land as lessee. On 25.5.1962 the Managing Officer went to the extent of recording that land, if available, should be included in the next auction programme.
The order of the Settlement Officer dated 28.6.1962 with powers of Settlement Commissioner, Jalandhar makes an interesting reading. It is placed at page 27 (red ink) of the allotment file of Hari Chand. It runs as under:-
“I have gone through the record of the District Rent & Managing Officer the perusal of which indicates that the applicant did not get his lease renewed after year 1957 and as such there is no impropriety in the order of the District Rent & Managing Officer. Besides, the order appealed against is dated 24th October, 1961, whereas the appellant filed the appeal on 25.5.62 and as such the appeal is hopelessly barred by time. I, therefore, dismiss the appeal on the point of limitation as well as on merits.”
Thereafter the Chief Settlement Commissioner passed the following order in revision on 20.10.62 which is at page 25 (red ink) of same file:-
“It has been now decided by the Ministry that where a person continues to be in occupation of the land, as lessee or sub-lessee it may be transferred to him and the condition of renewal of lease may be waived vide letter No.26(3)/L&R/62, dated 2.3.1962. The perusal of the khasra girdawari shows that the petitioner has been in continuous possession of the land since beginning of 1953, without a break. As such despite the non-renewal of the lease, he is entitled to the transfer of the land. Consequently the petition is accepted and the order of the Officer below is set aside and the case is sent back for reprocessing accordingly.”
The file dealing with application of Hari Chand and these orders shows that while taking decision on the application of Hari Chand the decision makers were oblivious of the vested rights of Lal Singh as owner had already been created at a much earlier date and the same could not be jeopardized. It is further noted that Hari Chand deposited 20% of Rs.7,187/- as late as 1968 for reasons not apparent on the records, and the remaining amount much later. In that view of the matter also there is no merit in the claim of the respondents. As already stated law cannot be interpreted in a vacuum; the rule under which Hari Chand applied came into existence on 26.11.60 and much before that Lal Singh had already purchased the land in auction and the transaction stood completed. Thus the interest of Lal Singh in the disputed land was absolute and complete before that. Hari Chand had no right to the allotment of a portion of Khasra No.532 as the entire khasra number already stood conclusively and finally transferred in favour of Lal Singh. In that view of the matter there is no substance in the claim of the Respondents and this review petition is accordingly accepted.
Announced.
(Shyama Mann)
Chandigarh, dated Financial Commissioner Revenue,
The 25th July, 2000 Punjab.
IN THE COURT OF MRS.
SHYAMA MANN, IAS, FINANCIAL COMMISSIONER REVENUE, PUNJAB, CHANDIGARH.
Madan Gopal son of Mangal Shah resident of Fatehpur Rajputan Tehsil Patiala through his Mukhtiar-I-Khas Hari Kishan son of Pt. Dina Nath of Patiala.
…Petitioner.
1. Shivinder Singh son of Harnam Singh resident of H.No.225/4 Pili Sarak, near Ganda Nala Bridge, Ghas Mandi, Patiala.
2. Dildar Singh son of Jagat Singh son of Jasahar Singh of Fatehpur Rajputan, Tehsil Patiala.
3. The State of Punjab through the Chief Settlement commissioner(Deputy Commissioner) Patiala.
4. The Settlement Commissioner Patiala Sub Division, Patiala.
5. Tehsildar(Sales)-cum-Managing Officer, Patiala.
…Respondents.
Present: During the arguments on 30.11.99.
Sh. Hari Kishan in person on behalf of Madan Gopal, petitioner.
Sh. Vivek Sharma,Advocate, proxy for Sh.G.S.Nagra,Advocate, arguments for the respondents.
1. This is petition u/s 33 read with section 24(iv) of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954 against the order of the Chief Settlement Commissioner (Deputy Commissioner) Patiala dated 1.12.1988.
2. The petitioner has stated that he was allotted land measuring 6 kanals comprising of Khasra No.48//1/2(4-0), 10/1(2-0) in the revenue estate Fetehpur Rajputan, Tehsil and District Patiala on 17.10.67 by the Tehsildar (Sales)-cum-Managing Officer, Patiala by `Parcha` claim and `parcha` allotment in lieu of the claim for the land left by him in Pakistan.
It is also stated that due to unavoidable circumstances and because of the misfortune of the petitioner, he could not get the possession of the land in dispute allotted to him despite his best efforts as the land was under unauthorised occupation of one Sh.Shiv Das Singh whose allotment was cancelled being in excess of his claim. In order to retain his possession on the land Shiv Das Singh kept on filing one petition or the other and ultimately the authorities had to order that the possession be got delivered to the petitioner with the help of the police, even then possession could not be delivered.
It has further been stated that one Shivinder Singh, respondent No.1, who was a vendee from one Wadhawa Singh (deceased allottee) of village Jaikhar, Tehsil Samana, District Patiala who was to get the allotment gave false information to the authorities concerned and procured a false report from the clerk of the Rehabilitation Department in connivance with the authorities that the petitioner was not taking the possession of the land intentionally inspite of the fact that it had been allotted to him since long. In the official note dated 19.5.86 it was observed that this land may be allotted to Respondent No.1, which was approved by the Tehsildar (Sales)-cum-Managing Officer, Patiala. On the same day a Parchi Allotment with regard to the land in dispute was issued in favour of the Shivinder Singh, Respondent No.1.
It is further alleged by the petitioner that Shivinder Singh Respondent No.1 transferred the land in dispute to Dildar Singh respondent No.2 on 10.6.86, i.e., within less than a month without even taking the possession of the land in dispute.
The petitioner continues to allege that Wadhawa Singh on whose behalf Respondent No. I is claiming allotment being vendee of his claim, was sitting allottee of Tehsil Samana who had died since long. Whereas the Punjab Government vide its letter No.1537 (12543/H-7), dated 30.9.87 addressed to the Tehsildar (Sales) issued instructions to the effect that unless the legal heirs of the deceased allottee come forward to secure alternative allotment, no allotment in the name of the vendees on the basis of sale deed could be made.
The plea of the petitioner is that the authorities below have not considered the matter and important aspects of the case that the Mukhtiarnama, if any, in favour of Shivinder Singh ceased to operate on the death of Wadhawa Singh who died much earlier to the allotment. There was no Mukhtiarnama in favour of Shivinder Singh respondent No.1 by the legal heirs of Wadhawa Singh (deceased). Apart from this the legal heirs of Wadhawa Singh had themselves made application to the authorities concerned i.e. Tehsildar (Sales) that the allotment may be made in their name and not in the name of Respondent No.1.
Hari Kishan on behalf of Madan Gopal petitioner argued that the allotment had been made in the name of Shivinder Singh who is neither claimant nor heir of Wadhawa Singh and had no concern with the allotment/claim. According to him even for the sake of argument if it is admitted that Shivinder Singh, Respondent No.1 was a vendee from the claimant (Wadhawa Singh) even then the allotment could not be made in his name. He further argued that Shivinder Singh son of Harnam Singh and Avtar Singh son of Sachet Singh purchased some other land from Wadhawa Singh in equal shares in village Jaikher, Tehsil Samana as is evident from the copy of the sale deed dated 12.6.1970 produced by Shivinder Singh, and if at all the land was to be allotted to the vendees then it should be allotted in the name of both the vendees and not in the name of Shivinder Singh alone in lieu of the land purchased by them which was cancelled.
3. The counsel for Dildar Singh, Respondent No.2 by filing written arguments argued that Madan Gopal has given General Power of Attorney dated 26.2.1985 to Harmail Singh alias Harnek Singh who further has given Special Power of Attorney dated 2.7.1986 to Hari Kishan. Thus Hari Kishan has no locus standi to file this petition on behalf of Madan Gopal. He further argues that the Respondent No.2 (Dildar Singh) made repeated request to this Court that Madan Gopal petitioner may be directed to appear in person. Despite the orders having been passed by this Court, Hari Kishan has failed to produce Madan Gopal petitioner. The Respondent No.2 Dildar Singh purchased the land in dispute measuring 6K-0M on 10.6.86 vide registered sale deed from Shivinder Singh for Rs.18,000/- and the mutation has been sanctioned in his favour. He also seeks protection under section 41 of the Transfer of Properties Act.
4. I have heard the parties and gone through the record placed on the file. The petitioner (Madan Gopal) was allotted land measuring 6K-0M comprising of Khasra No. 48//1/2(4-0), 10/2(2-0) in the revenue estate of Fatehpur Rajputan Tehsil and District Patiala, but he could not take possession of the land for a continuous period of 18 years. The present revision petition has been filed by Sh.Hari Kishan who is Mukhtiar-I-Khas of Harmail Singh who allegedly got the General Power of Attorney from Madan Gopal son of Mangal Shah. During the course of hearing Hari Kishan was given many opportunities to produce Sh. Madan Gopal. Inspite of repeated orders having been passed Sh. Hari Kishan failed to produce Madan Gopal. Therefore, it can be easily inferred that Sh.Madan Gopal petitioner is not interested in the case. Sh. Hari Kishan has taken Power of Attorney from one Harmail Singh @ Harnaik Singh on 27.1.1986. As Sh. Hari Kishan has no Power of Attorney from Sh.Madan Gopal, the original allottee, therefore, he has no right to file this revision petition. The case of Madan Gopal has rightly been dismissed by the lower courts and there is no occasion to interfere with these orders under Section 33 of the Displaced Persons(C & R) Act,1954 and the present petition is hereby dismissed.
5. So far as the allotment of land to Shivinder Singh is concerned, this is also liable to cancellation and it is found that the allotment of land to the tune of 6 SA-4 units to Wadhawa Singh in village Jaikhar was cancelled by the chief Settlement Commissioner vide his order dated 12.1.1975, and he was to be given alternative allotment in lieu of this cancelled land. The case remained pending with the Tehsildar(Sales), Patiala. Sh.Wadhawa Singh was making request for the allotment and after his death on 20.9.1978 his sons Man Singh, Balkar Singh, Sucha Singh, Tehal Singh were pursuing their case for allotment. The Tehsildar(Sales), Patiala submitted the case to Deputy Secretary Rehabilitation, Jalandhar vide his note dated 5.5.1982 in which he has stated that since the reversioners of Wadhawa Singh were not coming forward to pursue their case, Shivinder Singh son of Harnam Singh and Avtar Singh son of Suchet Singh who are vendees of Wadhawa Singh wanted the land of Wadhawa Singh son of Jawahar Singh to be allotted in their name. He also pointed out that there was no precedent where allotment could be made directly in the name of vendee and that it had to be done in favour of the deceased allottee who was owner in Pakistan.
The Deputy Secretary to Govt., Punjab, Rehabilitation Department, Jalandhar vide his Memo. No.1537/12543/G7, dated Jalandhar 30.9.1982 informed the Tehsildar that unless the legal heirs of the deceased allottee come forward to secure alternative allotment, no allotment in the name of the vendee on the basis of the sale deed could be made. Accordingly, the case received with his note No.542/TSP dated 26.7.1982, was returned. He desired that as and when the legal heirs came and demanded alternative allotment, the case may be sent for clearance.
Tehsildar(Sales) Patiala again submitted the case to Deputy Secretary Rehabilitation, Punjab, Mohali. The Deputy Secretary Rehabilitation Department vide his Memo.No. (1581)/16694/dated 6.9.83, while changing his earlier view informed the Tehsildar (Sales) Patiala that Shri Shavinder Singh vendee from Shri Wadhawa Singh son of Jawahar Singh may be provided alternative allotment to the tune of 6-4 SAs in village Jaikhar or in some nearby village, according to rules. The reason for this somersault are not intelligible.
Evidently, the Deputy
Secretary Rehabilitation seriously erred in holding that Shivinder Singh,
vendee of Wadhawa Singh may be provided alternative allotment to the tune of
6.4 SAs As per entitlement of allotment
of land was to be made in favour of Wadhawa Singh (deceased allottee) who was
owner in Pakistan and not in the name of any vendee. Even otherwise there was no absolutely occasion to make allotment
in the name of only one of the vendees .
On the basis of
the order of Deputy Secretary Rehabilitation Shivinder Singh managed to get the
allotment in village Budanpur, Tehsil Patiala of land bearing khasra No.
26/2/1min measuring 1K-8M of the value of 0.2-3/4 unit on 9.5.56 and in village
Shadipur Tehsil Patiala bearing Khasra Nos. 14//17/2/1(0-8), 25//10/3min(1-18),
29//13/1/2(0-15), 60//21(0-6), 38min(12-12) total measuring 15K-19M of standard
value of 1 standard acre and in village Fatehpur Rajputan Tehsil Patiala
48//1/2(4K-0M), 10/1(2K-0M) total measuring 6K-0M of 0.6 Std. Units on
19.5.1986.
The
present case deals with the allotment of land made to Shivinder Singh in
village Fatehpur Rajputan, and the same is hereby cancelled. The Deputy Commissioner, Patiala-cum-Chief
Settlement Commissioner is further directed to take up the case for
cancellation of allotment in the remaining two villages mentioned above and in
other villages wherever the allotment of the remaining area to the tune of 4
Std. As –11-1/4 units was made after giving due notice to the affected
parties.
Announced.
(Shyama Mann)
Chandigarh, dated Financial Commissioner Revenue,
The 14th Dec.,1999. Punjab.