IN THE COURT OF MRS. SHYAMA MANN,IAS, FINANCIAL COMMISSIONER REVENUE, PUNJAB, CHANDIGARH.

 

M.R.No. 18 of 1997-98

 

1.                  Som Parkash c/o Om Parkash son of Tarlok Chand Nanda resident of 14-B/4, Boat Club Road, Pune-1 through Dharam Chand son of Sanwla Ram-General Attorney. 

2.                  Inder Parkash (deceased) son of Tarlok Chand Nanda resident of 14-B/4 Boat Club Road, Pune-1 through Dharam Chand son of Sanwla Ram-Legal Representative. 

                                                                                                            …Petitioners. 

 

Versus

 

1.                  State. 

2.                  Data Ram son of Khazana resident of village Jandi  Tehsil Balachaur, District Nawanshahr. 

                                                                                                …Respondents.

 

Present during:  Sh. H.S.Narula, Advocate, counsel for the petitioners. 

arguments on     

7.12.99

 

 

ORDER

 

1.                This petition u/s 33 of the Displaced Persons (C & R) Act,1954 is directed against the order dated 19.8.1994 of chief settlement Commissioner read with order dated 20.6.97 of commissioner, Jalandhar whereby allotment made to the petitioners vide order dated 24.2.93 of Tehsildar-cum-Managing Officer, Balachaur was cancelled. 

 

2.                     The brief facts of the case brought on record are that Tehsildar (Sales)-cum-Managing Officer, Balachaur allotted land in villages Natha Nangal/398, Balewal/406 in favour of Inder Parkash and Som Parkash sons of Tarlok Chand, petitioners vide his order dated 24.2.93.  One Datta Ram son of Khazana resident of village Jandi Tehsil Balachaur impleaded as respondent No.2 in the present petition filed an appeal before the Sales Commissioner that Inder Parkash and Som Parkash(petitioners herein) are fictitious persons and land should not be allotted in their favour.  The Tehsildar(Sales), Balachaur also made a Suo-moto reference to the Settlement Commissioner and S.D.M., Balachaur vide his Endst.No.349/Sales dated 7.9.1993 for the cancellation of the allotment made by the Tehsildar(Sales). 

 

3.                            The Sales Commissioner sent notice to the petitioners Inder Parkash and Som Parkash.  Despite registered notices they did not turn up before the S.D.M.-cum-Settlement Commissioner(Sales), Balachaur. 

                        The S.D.M.-cum-Sales Commissioner, Balachaur presumed that the Power of Attorneys purporting to have been given by these two persons were bogus and endorsed the Suo-moto reference and recommended to the Chief Sales Commissioner-cum-Deputy Commissioner vide his Memo.No.349 dated 9.3.1994 for the cancellation of the allotment made in the name of the petitioners by the Tehsildar(Sales), Balachaur vide his order dated 24.2.1993.  After receiving the Suo-moto reference the Chief Sales Commissioner-cum-Deputy Commissioner, Hoshiarpur issued notice to Inder Parkash and Som Parkash and Mustri Munadi was also made.  But nobody responded to appear in the court of Chief Settlement Commissioner.  The Chief Settlement  He accepted the aforesaid suo-motu reference made by the Sales Commissioner-cum-SDM, Balachaur and cancelled the allotment vide his order dated 19.8.1994.  The Commissioner, Jalandhar Division also dismissed the petition being not maintainable before him vide order dated 20.6.1997 and advised the petitioners to approach the Financial Commissioner Revenue.  Hence the present petition u/s 33 of the Displaced Persons (C&R) Act, 1954.

 

4.                     I have heard the arguments of the counsel for the parties and gone through the record.  It is noticed that on representation of one Sh.R.P.Puri allegedly, General Attorney of Som Parkash and Inder Parkash, a duplicate Goshwara was prepared for allotment of land to the tune of 6 SAs-15-1/2 units each in the name of Som Paraksh @ Om Parkash  and Inder Parkash sons of Tarlok Chand.  This Goshwara was sent to Tehsildar(Sales)-cum-Managing Officer, Patiala on 16.2.1981.  Under the orders dated 25.2.87 of revenue Minister, Punjab, and endorsed by the Deputy Commissioner, Patiala the Tehsildar (Sales)-cum-Managing Officer, Patiala vide Memo.No.21 dated 30.3.1987 sent the file containing the duplicate Goshwara to SDM, Balachaur for allotment of land to the petitioners. 

                        As per photo copies of the Powers of Attorney available on the record Som Parkash son of Tarlok Chand further purportingly  appointed Mansa Ram son of Amar Chand resident of village Gungri Tehsil Balachaur as his General Attorney vide registered deed dated 7th May,1987.  Inder Parkash son of Tarlok Chand purportingly appointed Daman Kumar son of Gian Chand son of Gopi Ram resident of Balachaur as General Attorney.  The above noted General Powers of Attorney were got registered at Chandigarh on 7.5.1987.  Sh. R.P.Puri was one of the witnesses of both these documents.  Again Som Parkash purportingly appointed Dharam Chand son of Sanwla Ram resident of Lahori Gate, Patiala as General Attorney and this power of Attorney was got registered at Patiala on 18.2.1994.  The present revision petition hence filed by Sh. Dharam Chand Attorney on behalf of Som Parkash, and Inder Parkash (deceased )  son of Tarlok Chand, without any authority from the L.Rs of Inder Parkash, petitioner. 

 

5.                     I have gone through the copies of the pedigree table and jamabandi for the year 1946-47 of village Amnabad District Gujranwala.  As per entry in the jamabandi Sh.Tarlok Chand was owner of the land in village Amnabad.  The names of Kishore Chand, Om Parkash, Inder Rakha and Jagat Mohan have been added with blue ink below the name of Tarlok Chand in Shajra Nasab as his sons.  This entry has clearly been made afterwards in the pedigree table attached with the jamabandi.  In the jamabandi the name of Tarlok Chand exists in the ownership Column against Khewat No.32.  Names of Kishore Chand, Om Parkash, Inder Rakha and Jagat Mohan sons of Tarlok Chand have been entered with lead pencil in Column No.1,2,3.  This entry which has also been made afterwards clearly shows that Sh.Tarlok Chand was owner of the land at the time of partition of the country. 

            The present Goshwara has been prepared in the name of Som Parkash @ Om Parkash son of Tarlok Chand and Inder Parkash son of Tarlok Chand.  The names of Kishore Chand and Jagat Mohan are conspicuously missing in this goshwara, as already stated the names of Kishore Chand, Om Parkash, Inder Rakha and Jagat Mohan were entered later on as sons of Tarlok Chand.  In fact the Goshwara should have been issued/prepared in the name of Tarlok Chand only as per entry in the jamabandi at the time of partition.  The present petition was filed by Som Parkash @ Om Parkash son of Tarlok Chand and Inder Parkash (deceased) son of Tarlok Chand through Dharam Chand son of Sanwla Ram as his legal representative.  There is no application on the record to seek permission of the court to implead the legal representatives of Inder Parkash deceased.  Sh.Dharam Chand has claimed himself to be the legal representative of Inder Parkash (deceased) without indicating his relationship with him. 


6.                     It is significant to note that the petitioners did not present themselves personally before the Settlement Commissioner and the Chief Settlement commissioner, despite registered notices issued to them followed by proclamation.  All this gave rise to suspicion, given the credential of the petitioners.  Accordingly I also directed the counsel for the petitioners to produce  the original claimants or their legal representatives in the court vide my order dated 27.7.1999 for 7.9.1999.  The case was then repeatedly adjourned for 5.10.1999, 7.12.1999 and 21.12.1999.  But absolutely no effort was discernible on the part of counsel for the petitioner to secure the presence of the original claimants or their legal representatives before this court to dispel the suspicion generated on account of their complete absence from the proceedings before all the courts dealing with the matter followed by the repetition of that conduct before this court.  The non-appearance of the original claimants despite numerous opportunities leads to inescapable conclusion that the parties presenting their claim are bogus and non existent.  The genuineness and authenticity of Power of Attorney dated 7.5.1987 and 18.2.1994 referred to above (unattested photo copies of which are placed on record is referred to above) is shrouded in complete suspicion.  It is cardinal principle of justice that a party who sets up a claim should satisfy the concerned Court regarding its bonafides to the complete satisfaction of the Court.  Here in no body bothered to establish their bonafide to substantiate the claim. 

 

7.                     In the result I am of the opinion that it is clear that this claim has been set up by bogus and fictitious persons and the allotment made by Tehsildar Sales-cum-Managing Officer, Balachaur on 24.2.1993 was justifiably cancelled by the Chief Sales commissioner-cum-Deputy Commissioner, Hoshiarpur vide his order dated 19.8.1994.  There is no merit in this revision petition and the same is dismissed. 

                        It follows that the allotment made in the name of Som Parkash @ Om Parkash, Inder Parkash in villages Badi, Siana, Mehndipur, Fatehpur, Tonsa and Raipur or in any other village in pursuance  of Goshwara  mentioned above also suffers from the same illegality.  Therefore, the same be also cancelled by the Deputy Commissioner, Nawanshahr-cum-Chief Settlement Commissioner after giving reasonable opportunities to the affected persons. 

 

8.                     During the course of hearing on 6.7.99, Shri R.S.Chauhan, Advocate submitted an application  under Order 1 Rule 10 with Section 151 of CPC for impleading the applicants, namely Hans Raj, Sant Ram, Achhar Dass, Darshna Devi and Subhash Chand all residents of village Balewal as respondents. It has been stated in the said application that land measuring 57K-13M situated in village Balewal, tehsil Balachaur, district Nawanshahar  was put to auction on 10.5.1982. The sale was not confirmed because the land was ‘Ghairmumkin’  as per the Government Notification dated 7.7.1981.  Rather the allotment to the applicants was cancelled.  It has been further stated that aggrieved with the said cancellation, the deponent preferred a petition before the Commissioner, Jalandhar Division against the order of the C.S.C. dated 23.8.89 and the petition was accepted by the Commissioner vide his order dated 4.5.88 confirming the sale in favour of the applicants on the basis of a notification of the State Government dated 10.3.1989 vide which it was held that ‘Gair Mumkin’ land can be sold.  The said order dated 4.5.98  had attained finality as the same was not challenged before any higher authority.  Since the applicants are  seeking allotment of the very same land, interest of  applicant Sant Ram is directly and substantially involved .  Although the accompanying affidavit has been sworn by only Sant Ram, the Vakalatnama  has been signed by certain individuals namely Achhar Dass, Darshna Devi, Subhash Chand and thumb marked by Hans Raj.  Since the limited issue here is allotment to Som Parkash , Om Parkash, the interest of these applicants are not in jeopardized in any manner as no adverse order is being passed against their interest.  Therefore, they are not entitled to be impleaded as respondents in these proceedings.  Hence, the application is dismissed.  However, this will not be construed as confirmation of the order dated 4.5.1998 of the Commissioner, Jalandhar Division. 

Announced. 

                                                                                                                                    (Shyama Mann)

Chandigarh, dated                                                                                                  Financial Commissioner Revenue,

The 21st December,1999.                                                                                                         Punjab.

 

 

IN THE COURT OF MRS.SHYAMA MANN, IAS, FINANCIAL COMMISSIONER, REVENUE, PUNJAB, CHANDIGARH.

 

M.R. No.63 of 1990-91

 

Swaran Singh, son of Harnam Singh, village Khichian, Tehsil and district Gurdaspur.

 

…..Petitioner.

 

Versus

 

The State of Punjab.

 

…..Respondent.

 

Present during

arguments on :-   Sh.C.S.Jammu, Advocate, Counsel for the petitioner.

30-11-1999

 

 

ORDER

 

                        This is a petition under Section 33 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954 against the order dated 13.5.1991 passed by Chief Settlement Commissioner, Punjab, Chandigarh.

 

2.                     The brief but complex facts of the case are that Sh.Harnam Singh son of Mula (fathter of the petitioner) was allotted 10SA 7-1/2 units of evacuee land in village Khichian, Tehsil and District Gurdaspur in lieu of the land abandoned by him in Pakistan.  One Sh.Harnam Singh son of Ralla Ram made a complaint on 12.8.54 to the then Rehabilitation Minister alleging therein that Sh. Harnam Singh son of Mula had received excess allotment in village Khichian against his claim, which be cancelled and the area so retrieved be allotted to them to complete their entitlement as legal heirs of Rala Ram. On the basis of this complaint, the land account of Harnam Singh son of Mula (father of the petitioner) was re-checked and it was detected that due to wrong preparation of ‘Chhant’ and non-exclusion of share of occupancy tenants he was given excess allotment to the tune of 3SA 7-3/4 units which was cancelled by the then D.L.R.-cum-Deputy Custodian vide his order dated 23.3.55.


3.                     After this order Harnam Singh son of Mula tried to retain this excess allotment by adopting two ways: one by going in appeal and revision against the cancellation of the excess land, and the second by seeking allotment of the same land in the name of one Gandu son of Jawala who owned land in village Matta Hari, Tehsil Pasraur, district Sialkot.  Harnam Singh s/o Mula  requested that the excess area withdrawn from his allotment may be allotted in the name of Gandu who, he alleged, was an unsatisfied claimant. He also claimed himself to be the sole legal heir of Gandu.

 

4.                     It is pertinent to note here that Harnam Singh son of Mula made a request for allotment of share of Gandu to the authorities for the first time in the year 1955.  His plea was that Gandu son of Jawala held land in village Khan Hari and Matta Hari, Tehsil Pasraur, district Sialkot (Pakistan).  He was reported to be missing and unheard of for several years before partition of the country; mutation no.479 had been entered by the Patwari in respect of the land owned by him in village Matta Hari (Akhraj Gumshudgi) in favour of Harnam Singh son of Mula and Kartar Singh son of Sunder in equal shares. This mutation remained pending and could not be sanctioned before the Partition, as was evident from the un-attested copy of the mutation appended with the special jamabandi of village Matta Hari received from Pakistan.  He further alleged that in lieu of land owned by him in village Khan Hari, Gandu son of Jawala was provided 3-9-3/4 SA of land in village Chander Bhan, Tehsil and district Gurdaspur under reserved category at the time of general allotment and this area being in possession of the legal heirs the claim was undisputed.

 

5.                     It was directed in the letter dated 2.5.55 of the then Deputy Custodian that out of the cancelled area (3-7-3/4 SA), area measuring 2-14-1/4SA should be allotted to the complainant (first informer) i.e. Harnam Singh s/o Ralla Ram if he so desired. Pursuantly,  Harnam Singh son of Ralla Ram informer was heard on 7.5.55 and he gave his option for the allotment of the area (2-14-1/2 SA) out of the area proposed to be cancelled from the allotment of Harnam Singh s/o Mula.  Originally, the entitlement of Gandu s/o Jawala was reckoned as 1.3 SA and the said Harnam Singh s/o Mula was to succeed the estate of Gandu in equal share with Kartar Singh as per mutation No.479.  Harnam Singh s/o Mula was allowed to get 9-1/2 units,       (i.e. one half of 1.3 SA ) allotted in the name of Gandu, out of the area to be cancelled from his allotment.  The balance area of 2SA 14-1/4 units  was to be allotted to the informer. There was no mention of Kartar Singh’s half share of 9-1/2 units.  This proposal was approved by the then D.L.R. vide his order dated 15.5.55.

 

6.                     Separately, Harnam Singh s/o Mula  had filed a revision petition before the Additional Custodian, Punjab, Jalandhar against the cancellation of excess allotment.  The revision petition was dismissed by the Additional Custodian vide his order dated 4.11.55 being time-barred.  It was, however, directed that the order dated 2.5.55 of the Deputy Custodian General should be implemented  at an early date.  Accordingly, 9-1/2 units area was allotted in the name of Gandu s/o Jawala whereas the balance was allotted in the name of Ralla Ram s/o Atra in village Khichian, Tehsil and district Gurdaspur, by the then A.R.-cum-M.O. vide his order dated 8.6.56.

On a separate file on 29.5.56, a duplicate Goshwara was manipulated by Harnam Singh s/o Mula in name of Gandu s/o Jawala for an area of 3SA 11-1/4 units.  This was got done on the basis of an office note.

 

7.                     Thereafter, on 18.6.56 the then A.R.-cum-M.O. Jalandhar sought clarification  from Deputy Registrar –cum- Deputy Custodian regarding the manner in which the order regarding allotment was to be implemented. The latter by his order dated 20.6.56 observed that the earlier order of the Deputy Registrar, Land Claims, dated 2.5.55, which was very clear should be implemented.  This time, the entire area to the tune of 3SA 7-3/4 units which was cancelled from the allotment of Harnam Singh s/o Mula was allotted in the name of Gandu s/o Jawala, by the then Assistant Registrar-cum-M.O. vide his order dated 22.6.56, thereby resulting in cancellation of area of Harnam Singh s/o Ralla Ram. Although in this file also the eligibility of Gandu s/o Jawala was reckoned at 3SA 11-1/4 unit, the factum regarding preparation of  duplicate Goshwara on 29.5.56 did not find any mention.  This action of the A.R.-cum-M.O. gave a cause of grievance to the complainant-cum-informer, Harnam Singh son of Ralla Ram, as he had been deprived of his allotment. He challenged  the same in appeal under Section 22 of the DP(C&R)Act, 1954, before the Settlement Commissioner. The appeal was accepted by the Additional Settlement Commissioner vide his order dated 5.10.56 and the original position was restored, meaning thereby that allotment to the tune of 9-1/2 units  alone was allowed to remain intact in the name of Gandu s/o Jawala, while the balance area was to go to the complainant-appellant.  The following portion of his order deserves pointed mention:-

“Harnam Singh s/o Ralla Ram was given an allotment for 2SA-14-1/2 units leaving 9-1/2 units with Harnam Singh s/o Mula Singh on behalf of Gandu on 8.6.56.  On 11.6.56 i.e. only 3 days after the allotment had been made in the name of Gandu, it was reported by the office that Gandu was actually entitled to an allotment of 3SA 11-1/4 units instead of 1.3 SA half of which (9-1/2 units) had already been allotted to him.  On 18.6.56 i.e. only 10 days after the allotment had been duly given to Harnam Singh son of  Ralla Ram, the Deputy Registrar, Land Claims-cum-Settlement Officer directed vide his order dated 20.6.56 that Deputy Custodian’s order dated 2.5.56 should be implemented.  The order was not very clear but on implementation thereof the area cancelled from Harnam Singh s/o Mulla Singh’s name was allotted in the name of Gandu which area was actually to be taken by Harnam Singh s/o Mulla Singh as latter’s legal heir.  Harnam Singh s/o Ralla Ram complainant has filed this appeal against the said order.

I have gone through the record.  It is very unfortunate that inspite of the fact that the complainant (appellant) had succeeded in detecting excess allotment made in the name of the respondent, he was not given the full benefit thereof as it should have been done according to the departmental instructions but was inflicted with various contradictory orders passed from to  time and was ultimately deprived of the fruits of his labour altogether.  In the first instance when the complaint filed by Harnam Singh son of Ralla Ram was found to be correct and area of 3SA-7-1/2 units was deducted from Harnam Singh son of Mula Singh’s allotment and the same was ordered to be allotted to the complainant by the Deputy Custodian on 23.3.55, his subsequent order dated 2.5.55 (again giving 9-1/2 units to Harnam Singh son of Mula Singh and 2SA 14-1/2 units to the complainant) was not only improper but incorrect legally also because as Deputy Custodian he was not competent to review his orders.  Anyhow, as the Additional Custodian had also held in his order dated 4.11.55 that Deputy Custodian’s order dated 2.5.56 should be implemented, there should have been end of it and no further deduction should have been made from complainant’s allotment.  The later action of the settlement authorities in  allotting the entire area released from Harnam Singh to Gandu (in fact to Harnam Singh son of Mula Singh) and depriving the complainant of the whole area was highly unfair and improper.”

 

8.                     Dissatisfied with this order Harnam Singh s/o Mula went in appeal before Custodian General, Government of India, New Delhi against the order dated 5.10.56 of the Additional Settlement Commissioner.  He appeared before the Tehsildar-cum-M.O., Gurdaspur on 11.1.57 and stated before him that he had filed an appeal before the higher authorities and pending  decision of the same, he may not be allotted any area in any other village as a legal heir of Gandu s/o Jawala.

 

                        The Tehsildar, Gurdaspur, accordingly returned the allotment case to the Deputy Registrar, Land Claims, Jalandhar vide his endorsement no.126, dated 16.1.57.  However, the appeal filed by Harnam Singh s/o Mula against the order dated 5.10.56 of the Additional Settlement Commissioner, under the provisions of the Displaced Persons (C&R)Act, 1954, was returned to the appellant, Harnam Singh s/o Mula, on 26.2.57 with the observation that it did not lie before him as he was functioning under Section 27 of the Administration of Evacuee Property Act, 1950 and it should be presented before the competent authority.  A copy of the said order dated 26.2.57 alongwith the allotment case of Gandu s/o Jawala was forwarded to the  Deputy Commissioner, Gurdaspur, vide endorsement No.172/Cust.General dated 29.3.57.  Then, Harnam Singh s/o Mula again appeared before the Managing Officer Gurdaspur on 12.7.57 and stated that he was interested to get the area due to Gandu allotted in village Khichian for which purpose he had filed an appeal. He undertook to inform the M.O. about the decision of his appeal and stated that he would give his option if he was to be accommodated in any other village because at that time no area was available for allotment in village Khichian.  This statement was duly thumb marked by Harnam Singh s/o Mula.  The case was accordingly kept pending as desired by the allottee.

 

9.                     Thereafter, Harnam Singh remained dormant for a period of 24 years and it was only on 25.5.81 that his son Swaran Singh awoke from his unconscionably  long drawn out slumber and sought allotment of balance area on the ground that his case for alternative allotment had not been finalized, and had instead been consigned to the Record Room vide No.119 dated 11.1.65.  This application was processed by the then A.R.-cum-M.O., who observed that the legal heirs of Gandu s/o Jawala had been pursuing the matter until 1965, when the case was consigned without providing additional allotment to them.  He thus held them entitled for an additional area measuring 3SA 1-3/4 units of land in Tehsil Gurdaspur vide his order dated 29.3.1982.  On 4.9.1990 a suo motu reference was made by the Superintendent Legal, Rehabilitation Department, Punjab, Chandigarh under Section 24 of the Displaced Persons (C&R)Act, 1954,  in which the time barred nature of the claim was pointed out.  This suo motu reference was accepted on 13.5.91.  Hence the present petition.

 

10.                   I have gone through the record placed on the file.  It stands proved that Harnam Singh s/o Mula had not submitted any claim for allotment of land to Gandu s/o Jawala upto the year 1955.  In 1955, after Harnam Singh’s  own allotment to the tune of 3SA-7-3/4 units was cancelled being in excess, he staked his claim for  allotment as an heir of Gandu son of Jawala. His claim was based on an unattested mutation of “Akhrajnama Gumshudgi” of Gandu s/o Jawala  found in the copy of jamabandi of village Matta Hari, Tehsil Pasraur, district Sialkot received from Pakistan, which was shown as entered in favour of Harnam Singh s/o Jawala and Kartar Singh s/o Inder in equal shares. There is no mention of any corresponding mutation having been found in the jamabandi of village Khan Hari received from Pakistan.  Originally, in 1955 the entitlement of Gandu s/o Jawala in Matta Heri  was reckoned as 1SA 3 units out of which share of Harnam Singh son of Mula was determined as 9-1/2 units only (as he and Kartar Singh son of Sunder were to share this area equally as per unattested mutation no.479).  The remaining land was ordered to be allotted to the complainant/informer.  Wishing to retain the entire land, Harnam Singh son of Mula filed a revision petition, which was dismissed on 4.11.1955 as being time barred.   On 11.6.56, however, Harnam Singh son of Mula managed to get a report by office that Gandu was actually entitled to allotment of 3-11-1/4 units instead of 1-3 SAs.

 

11.                   The entire sequence of events brought out in the above paras show that the sole purpose of various appeals and revisions preferred  by Harnam Singh s/o Mula was to retain the excess allotment cancelled from his name on 23.3.55. This, he managed by seeking allotment in the name of Gandu s/o Jawala in relation to land left by him in village Matta Hari, Tehsil Pasrur, district Sialkot and also filing repeated appeals against his own cancellation. Evidently obsessed by aggrandizement, he systematically rather fraudulently, went on inflating his claim till it encompassed not only the entire cancelled area but also exceeded it. Surprisingly, there was no mention of any unattested mutation of “Akhraj Gumshudgi”  in respect of village  Khan Hari – [it is stated by the petitioner that land allotted in the name of Gandu son of Jawala in village Chander Bhan, Tehsil Gurdaspur in lieu of land in village Khan Hari stands disposed of since!]

 

12.                   As to the inordinately long delay of 24 years between the time when Harnam Singh son of Mula made a request in 1957 for keeping his case pending, and his son appearing in 1981 to stake his claim on the basis of that request, no reasons could be given by the petitioner.  In the  petition u/s 33, Swaran Singh has stated that Gandu was not heard of for  many years before Partition of the country, whereas the affidavit dated 25.7.99 submitted before this court states that Gandu son of Jawala had died during the riots in 1947.  If this be so, the entry of mutation (though unattested) in the name of Harnam Singh s/o Mula and Kartar Singh s/o Inder Singh in a jamabandi received from Pakistan goes unexplained and eludes reconciliation.  This glaring contradiction raises doubts regarding the genuineness of the claim of the petitioner.   Again, Swaran Singh has repeatedly been giving the impression that first his father Harnam Singh s/o Mula,  and now he, (Swaran Singh) is the sole surviving claimant to the inheritance of Gandu.  When he was directed by the undersigned  to give information regarding the surviving natural heirs of Gandu and the date of death of those who had since  died, he has come out with a vague affidavit sworn on 25.10..99 which justifies an inference that Kartar Singh s/o Sunder Singh  with whom he had claimed equal share vide alleged mutation no.479 is alive.  It is mentioned in this affidavit that Kartar Singh had relinquished  his share in favour of the deponent since long by accepting cash  consideration for his share.  As per the same affidavit dated 25.10.99 the petitioner has furnished the pedigree table depicting the relationship of Gandu, Kartar Singh and Harnam Singh as under:-

 

 

                                                 Dewan Singh                            
                        ………………….. !………………………………..
            !                              !                                                  !
     Jawala Singh            Malla Singh                              Lehna Singh

       !                                   !                                                  !

 Gandu                        Sunder                                     Mula Singh

 (Died issueless)                 !                                                   !       

                                    Kartar Singh                             Harnam Singh

                                                                                              !

                                                                                    Swaran Singh

 

         No dates of death have been given.

        

As per pedigree table prepared on the mutation no.678 of inheritance of Gandu in village Chander Bhan, tehsil Gurdaspur, the relationship of the three is as under:-

 

Dewan Singh

           

                                                                                                           

Lehna                           Jawala                                      Sunder

           

              Malla                          Gandu                         Kartar Singh Kartar Kaur

           

Harnam Kaur  Harnam Singh                                                   

                       

Thus, in the pedigree table given by the petitioner, Harnam Singh and Kartar Singh are reflected as grandsons respectively of Gandu’s brothers, namely Lehna Singh and Malla Singh. But in the mutation of inheritance of Chander Bhan, Gandu has been shown as uncle of Harnam Singh but cousin of Kartar Singh. Interestingly, the pedigree table attached with the unattested mutation of village Matta Hari H.B. No.208, tehsil Pasrur, district Sialkot to which the claim relates is as under:-

            Jawala

                

Gandu              Sunder             Moola

                                             

                                    Kartar Singh    Harnam Singh

 

 

            Thus in the fact of this hazy and blurred spectacle Swaran Singh  has driven himself to limbo and has not been able to establish beyond doubt that he is an heir of Gandu and a sole surviving one at that.  Such sort of fragile evidence cannot form the foundation for a claim of property.

13.                   On the contrary, a look at the old records shows  that originally a parcha claim No.53  relating to allotment of land to Gandu s/o Jawala was issued in lieu of his land in village Matta Hari, tehsil Pasraur, district Sialkot as per D.I. register relating to the allotment to the owners who were holding land in village Mata Heri H.B.No.208.  Gandu’s name has been mentioned at Sr.No.25 of the register and his entitlement was only 0SA14-1/4 units. In lieu of this he was allotted land in village Bassi Maggran H.B.No. 315 , tehsil and district Hoshiarpur.  Thus, it is clear that petitioner’s father Harnam Singh manipulated duplicate parcha claim by playing a fraud  with the connivance of the Rehabilitation officials/officers when the excess allotment of Harnam Singh was cancelled in 1955.  Originally, the claim was prepared for a meagre area of 1SA-3 units of which Harnam Singh’s share was computed as 9-1/2 units. This duplicate parcha claim was prepared merely on the note of an official.  The officers did not bother to check and verify the record before issuing the duplicate parcha claim and did not try to find whether Gandu had been allotted any land against  parcha claim No.53 issued earlier. 

 

14.                   In the ultimate analysis the petitioner has not only miserably failed to connect himself to Gandu as his sole surviving heir, but even his claim has been found to be baseless.  Rather, there was no occasion for any allotment/conceding his claim at any stage and probably that is why Harnam Singh s/o Mula made a request  for keeping his claim pending indefinitely.  Had the revenue authorities shown sincerity in perusing the record, the lingering state of uncertainty would not have been perpetuated that long.

In the light of my above discussion I do not find any merit in this revision petition and the same is dismissed.  In the sequel, it is quite evident that the petitioner is still undeservedly continuing  in unauthorized possession of 9-1/2 units of excess allotment made in favour of Gandu which needs to be retrieved from him forthwith  Deputy Commissioner-cum-Chief Settlement Commissioner, Gurdaspur is directed to do the needful at an early date.

Deputy Commissioner should also make an indepth inquiry regarding the allotment in the name of Gandu s/o Jawala in village Chander Bhan in lieu of land abandoned by him in village Khan Heri, tehsil Pasraur as the  irreconcilably  conflicting pedigree tables throw a flood of suspicion on the genuineness of the claim of the allottee.  Action should also be taken against the officers of the Claim office who danced to the tune of Harnam Singh and increased or decreased the area at his bidding and postpone decisions as per his wishes.

Announced.

 

 

Chandigarh, dated                                                                                                           (Shyama Mann)

The 7th December, 1999                                                                                        Financial Commissioner, Revenue,

 Punjab.

 

 

IN THE COURT OF MRS. SHYAMA MANN, IAS, FINANCIAL COMMISSIONER REVENUE, PUNJAB, CHANDIGARH.

 

Misc. Reh. No. 49 of 1997-98

 

 

1.                  Puran Chand;

2.                  Kapur Chand

Sons of Karam Chand son of Bhagat Ram residents of House No.13/9, Gandhi Camp, Jalandhar.

 

….Petitioners.

 

Versus

 

1.                  The Union of India;

2.                  The State of Punjab;

3.                  The Chief Settlement Commissioner, Punjab;

4.                  Shakuntla Bhalla daughter of H.R.Jaidke;

5.                  Bhisham Jaidke son of H.R.Jaidke;

Through their Attorney Deepak Bhalla son of Satya Pal Bhalla, resident of House No.183/1, Saheed Udham Singh Nagar, Jalandhar City.

6.                  The Government High School Gandhi Nagar, Jalandhar, Parents Teachers Association through its alleged President

 

……Respondents.

 

 

 

Misc. Reh.No.50 of 1997-98

 

 

1.            Puran Chand;

2.            Kapur Chand

sons of Karam Chand son of Bhagat Ram residents of House No.13/9, Gandhi Camp, Jalandhar.

 

….Petitioners.

 

Versus

 

1.            The Union of India;

2.            The State of Punjab;

3.            The Chief Settlement Commissioner, Punjab;

4.            The Government High School Gandhi Nagar, Jalandhar, Parents Teachers         Association through its alleged       President

5.            Shakuntla Bhalla daughter of H.R.Jaidke;

6.            Shisham Jaidke son of H.R.Jaidke through their Attorney Deepak Bhalla son of Satya Pal Bhalla resident of House       No.183/1, Shaheed Udham Singh Nagar, Jalandhar City.

 

….Respondents.

 

Present:            Sh. P.N.Aggarwal, Advocate, counsel for the petitioners.

during               Sh.O.K.Puri, Senior State Counsel for the State.

arguments         Sh. Dinesh Ghai, Advocate, counsel for respondent- Parents Teachers

on                    Association.

27.7.1999.

 

 

ORDER

 

1.                     These are two connected petitions under Section 33 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954 for setting aside the order dated 31.3.1998 of the Chief Settlement Commissioner, Punjab by which the President Parents Teachers Association, Government High School Gandhi Nagar, Jalandhar, Shakuntla Bhalla and Shisham Jaidke respondents have been impleaded as party in the cases pending before the Chief Settlement Commissioner, Punjab.  As the facts and issues in both the applications are similar these are being disposed of by a single order, a copy of which shall be placed on each of the files. 

 

2.                     Common facts of this case as agitated by the petitioners are that Karam Chand predecessor-in-interest of present petitioners made an application for transfer of land measuring 4 kanals 12 marlas situated in Gandhi Nagar, Jalandhar in his capacity as sub-lessee.  The said application was rejected by the Tehsildar (Sales), Jalandhar on 10.4.1978 because prior to 1950 the status of Karam Chand was gair-marusi and not as sub-lessee.  The Settlement Commissioner accepted the appeal on 1.6.1978 and remanded the case to the Managing Officer with the directions to transfer the land in view of instructions dated 1.10.1962 issued by the Rehabilitation Department.  The application of Karam Chand was rejected on 29.1.1980.  However, Settlement commissioner again accepted the appeal on 1.7.1980 and remanded the case to Managing Officer to decide this case keeping in view instructi9ons given by Financial Commissioner revenue in his order dated 20.5.1980.  On the report of Kanungo(s), Managing Officer admitted the possession of petitioners at the spot and held on 9.10.1992 that petitioners were eligible for the transfer of land comprising in khasra No.707(4-12).  The petitioners deposited the rent as well as price of land and thereafter conveyance deed dated 14.10.1992 was issued in their favour.  On certain complaints Deputy Commissioner took up the matter as a  suo-moto reference to the Chief Settlement Commissioner and vide his order dated 29.10.1993 set aside the order dated 9.10.1992 of Tehsildar(Sales).  Aggrieved by this order the petitioners came in petition under Section 33 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation)Act, 1954 before Financial Commissioner Revenue
which was accepted on 23.4.1996 without going into the merits of this case and case was remanded to the Chief Settlement Commissioner (Rehabilitation Department) Punjab for giving fresh decision after hearing the parties and giving them a proper opportunity. 

 

3.                        During the pendency of the case before the Chief Settlement Commissioner Smt. Shakuntala Bhalla, Bhisham Jaidke and the Partent Teachers’ Association filed applications for being impleaded as parties in the proceedings.  These were allowed by Chief Settlement Commissioner vide common order dated 31.3.1998 which is the impugned order. 

                        M.R.No.49 of 1997-98 is directed again impleading Shakuntala Bhalla and Bhisham Jaidke as respondents vide Chief Settlement Commissioner’s order dated 31.3.1998, while M.R.No.50 of 1998 is directed against impleading the Parent Teachers’ Association of Govt. High School Gandhi Nagar, Jalandhar as respondent vide the same order dated 31.3.1998. 

 

4.                     In M.R.No.49 of 1997-98 it has been pointed out that these two persons had filed an application dated 4.10.1994 before Financial Commissioner revenue while M.R.No.19 of 1993 under Section 33 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation & Rehabilitation) Act, 1954 was pending before him.  That application was opposed by the Parent Teachers’ Association and it was rejected by Financial Commissioner Revenue vide a detailed order dated 6.6.1995.  On the same averments these parties filed an application dated 6.8.1996 before the Chief Settlement Commissioner which has been wrongly allowed by Chief Settlement Commissioner vide her order dated 31.3.1998.  It has been argued that there was no justification for the Chief Settlement Commissioner taking a different view from that of the Financial Commissioner Revenue.  The second objection is that Smt. Shakuntala Bhalla and Bhisham Jaidke are total strangers to the case.  Not having been a party before any lower authority, they cannot be allowed to join at the revisional stage.  Moreover, the only reason they have come forward is that they want to establish their independent claim over a part of the property as co-sharers, for which purpose they became suddenly active after 1987 and also manipulated the revenue record.  In particular a reference has been made to 1996(3) RCR 593 vide which it has been held that as per provisions of CPC Order 1 Rule 3 and 10 no person can be impleaded unless he is a necessary or proper party to the lis to get his rights determined in the suit of another party.  The applicants want to get their own rights determined and decided in the suit filed by the petitioners and they cannot be allowed to be impleaded as a necessary party simply to avoid multiplicity  of litigation.  The same is the view held in 1996 (3) RCR-419. 

 

5.                     In respect of the Parent Teachers’ Association of the Govt. High School, Gandhi Nagar against the objection is that the persons who are agitating their right to being impleaded as total strangers to the suit.  The only issue before the competent authority is whether the property has been transferred in the name of the petitioners correctly, and not whether there are any other contenders of the same.  Even if it is admitted that the allotment was cancelled on the basis of a complaint, the informant is a mere informant and he cannot be considered to be a party to the lis or an aggrieved party.  Such a person is in no better a position than a person who gives information to the police about the omission of an offence and has no right to be heard in view of the above pronouncements of the Hon’ble High Court.

 

6.                     The counsel for the respondent Association has stated that the dispute relates to transfer of prime land measuring 4 kanals 12 marlas adjoining the school.  The transfer in favour of the two petitioners was cancelled by Deputy Commissioner-cum-Chief Sales Commissioner, Jalandhar on the complaint of the Parent Teachers’ Association of the School.  The impression conveyed by the petitioners that they were not given an opportunity to explain the position is not correct.  When the respondent had made the complaint Chief Settlement Commissioner Jalandhar had given his findings only after hearing both the parties and after going through the record and these facts are evident from his order.  The counsel for the respondent-Parent Teachers’ Association has further stated that the order dated 31.3.1998 of Chief Settlement Commissioner is interlocutory in nature; the main proceedings are still pending before Chief Settlement Commissioner as the matter was remanded by Financial Commissioner on 23.4.1996 and therefore the two petitions against the interlocutory order are not maintainable under Section 33 of the Displaced Persons ( Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954.  The petitioners are interested only in prolonging the matter as they have sold off this land at very high prices, and pocketed the money.  They are guilty of committing a fraud on the Rehabilitation Department as they have tried to grab valuable Govt. land for a throw away price for personal gain.  The disputed piece of land is adjoining the Govt. High School Gandhi Nagar and the transfer application of the School is pending for its use as a play-ground.  It is a Govt. School and the land also belongs to the Govt. There is thus no ulterior motive or individual interest of the Association in the case; the only common interest is the welfare of the children and betterment of their surroundings.  The transfer of land was rightly cancelled by Deputy Commissioner-cum-Chief Sales Commissioner, Jalandhar on the basis of a complaint by the Parent Teachers’ Association as it was found that the record had been tampered with and manipulated to suit the interests of the petitioners.  That the petitioners and the lower revenue functionaries connived to make a fast buck is evident from the fact that roughly only Rs.10,000/- were charged by the Managing Officer from the petitioner (Rs.3514/- as rent and Rs.6740/- as price of the plot) which works out to less than Rs.75/- marla or Rs.375/- for 5 marlas.  As per petitioners own admission they entered into an agreement for selling an area measuring 5 marlas out of this for a consideration of Rs.65,000/- within a couple of months after its transfer in their favour.  The Tehsildar (Sales) was not competent to determine the price of the land which could only be done by the Settlement Officer.  The petitioners have virtually sold off the entire land thereafter, and they are now interested in prolonging the proceedings on one pretext or the other to ensure that the order of cancellation of transfer does not become final.

 

7.                     I have heard the counsel for the parties and read the papers on record including the record attached to M.R.19 of 1993-94.  It is noticed from the record that soon after the property was transferred in favour of the petitioners there was a spate of allegations against them and the lower revenue authorities regarding manipulation of revenue record for facilitating the transfer, some of these are listed in the order of Deputy Commissioner-cum-Chief Settlement Commissioner’s order dated 29.10.1993.  The matter also found vide pu8blicity in the press. 

 

8.                     The land belongs to the Govt. and the market rate is very high and the petitioners are obviously interested in pressing only their own case and are in a position to engage the best possible assistance.  It becomes the duty of an Govt. Officer exercising authority under the Act to ensure that the legitimate interest of the Govt. is not jeopardized due to lack of pleadings.  Any assistance in arriving at the truth should therefore be welcome. 

 

9.                     Presently, the matter is pending with Chief Settlement Commissioner as a revisional authority under Section 24 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation & Rehabilitation ) Act, 1954.  Revisional powers are in the nature of inherent powers for passing appropriate legal orders contemplated by the statute and if any error has been committed by the subordinate authorities in passing orders under the Act, to correct the same.  It would be immaterial whether the Authority was moved by the department or any person uninterested, interested or aggrieved.  Viewed in this context no fault can be found with the Parent Teachers’ Association joining the proceedings.  Rather in the background of the fact that the Parent Teachers’ Association had played a very active role in presenting the facts before the Deputy Commissioner-cum-Chief Settlement Commissioner, their association with the proceedings before the Chief Settlement Commissioner in the now pending revision is essential.  If the petitioners’ case is good on merits it is in their own interest that the allegations are discussed in open court and the controversy laid to rest once and for all.  Even in the case of Smt. Shakuntala Bhalla and Bhisham Jaidke, it is felt that the petitioners have tried to read too much into the intentions of the Chief Settlement Commissioner.  It has been recognised in a number of judicial pronouncements that the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act is a complete code by itself.  Moreover, the order of the Chief Settlement Commissioner dated 31.3.1998 is interlocutory in nature and has been passed by her in her capacity as a revisional authority under the said act.  Therefore, a reference to provisions of CPC in the context of this interlocutory order was perhaps not strictly relevant.  In view of this discussion I find no merit in the contentions of the petitioners and the two petitions are accordingly declined. 

 

10.                   In passing it is observed here that under Rule 119 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation & Rehabilitation) Rules, 1955 there is bar against appearance of legal practitioners in respect of proceedings under certain sections of the Displaced Persons (Compensation & Rehabilitation) Act including under Section 33.  Despite this and the interlocutory nature of the order the counsel for the parties have been given ample opportunity to make their pleadings before me in open court.  However, if the petitioners are aggrieved by the final order of the Chief Settlement Commissioner, whenever made, they have the remedy under Section 33 of the Act. 

 

                        Announced.

 

 

                                                                                                                                    (Shyama Mann)

Chandigarh, dated                                                                                            Financial Commissioner Revenue,

the 3rd August, 1999                                                                                                                 Punjab.

Contents           Next