IN THE COURT OF MRS. SHYAMA
MANN, IAS, FINANCIAL COMMISSIONER REVENUE, PUNJAB, CHANDIGARH.
1, Surjit Singh son of Charan Singh;
2, Darshan Singh son of Nanak Singh;
3. Mohinder Singh son of Ladha Singh;
4. Piara Singh son of Mangal Singh;
5. Mahnga Singh son of Karam Chand;
6. Santokh Singh son of Bhag Singh;
7. Ujjagar Singh son of Maghar Singh;
8. Inder Singh son of Saudagar Singh;
9. Amar Singh son of Khazan Singh;
all residents of village and P.O: Maqsudpur, Tehsil Bholath, District Kapurthala.
….Petitioners.
1. Tehsildar (Sales)-cum-Managing Officer, Kapurthala (now Bholath).
2. Dalip Singh son of Labh Singh (allottee) through his General Attorney, Surjit Singh son of Arjan Singh son of Narain Singh resident of 499-Field Ganj Gali No.7, Ludhiana.
3. Avtar Singh, Amar Singh sons of Gurbakhsh Singh son of Jassa Singh (Vendees of the allottee) VPO Maqsudpur, Tehsil Bholath District Kapurthala.
……Respondents.
Present: Sh.T.R.Vij, Advocate, counsel for the petitioners.
Sh. Malkiat Singh, Advocate, counsel respondent No.3.
Sh. Balbir Singh, Senior State counsel.
This is a petition under section 33 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954. The petitioners have requested for setting aside the order of the Deputy Commissioner-cum-Chief Settlement Commissioner, Kapurthala dated 8.4.1999 vide which their revision petition was dismissed in limine on grounds of non-maintainability.
The dispute relates to the allotment of an area measuring 2K-3M in favour of Dalip Singh son of Labh Singh through his General Attorney, Surjit Singh son of Arjan Singh of Ludhiana. The plea of the petitioners is that this allotted land is public path, i.e., ‘Shar-e-aam rasta’ and the allotment of this strategic piece of land was made in a very secret manner to Respondent No.2, Dalip Singh. It has been alleged that the allotment is bogus in nature, the Power of Attorney claimed to have been executed in 1979 is a false document and being an imposter the claimant did not come forward himself. The allotment is fraudulent and has been secured by misrepresentation and concealment of facts. It has also been asserted that the allotment of a public path is prohibited. The jamabandi for 1987-88 shows that khasra No.96 in Khewat No.679, Khatauni 1257 is owned by local ‘Malkan’ in 1/8 share and by the Custodian in 7/8 share. The total area is 12K-13M and it is recorded as Gairmumkin Rasta. No Lagaan is being paid for this area. The same entries are repeated in khasra girdawari upto Sauni, 1988 wherein also it is entered as public path. The possession of this path was entered in favour of respondent No.2 vide ‘rapat’ No.6 dated 3.1.1989 and the area was sold to respondent No.3 vide registered sale deed dated 16.1.1989 for a consideration of Rs.6,000/-. Thus, the respondent No.2 has endeavoured to complicate the entire matter for his personal gain. It is further alleged that there is no ‘goshwara’ allotment forwarded by the Rehabilitation Department, Chandigarh to the Tehsildar (Sales) for allotment and no case has been consigned in D.L.R’s office regarding this allotment and nor is the same traceable in Deputy Commissioner Office, Kapurthala. Thus, it is evident that a bogus parchi for allotment was made and “dakhal” of Surjit Singh was entered in the revenue record who immediately, thereafter, sold it through registered sale deed. Otherwise, also the rule has been violated as ‘Shar-e-aam’ rasta is not allotable nor is composite property allotable as per Evacuee Separation Interest Act, 1951 without separating shares after partition. It has also been urged that the path in dispute is being used by 150 families in four villages who would be affected they are deprived of this passage.
Notice of petition was sent to respondents Nos.2 and 3. Sh. Malkiat Singh, Advocate appeared for respondents No.3, Avtar Singh and Amar Singh on 17.8.1999. As no report regarding service of Dalip Singh allottee, was received he was directed to be served again for 14.9.1999. On 14.9.1999 Sh.Ajit Singh, Advocate appeared for Amar Singh respondent No.3 and Surjit Singh alleged General Attorney of respondent No.2. He also filed a Vakalatnama for them. Later on Sh.R.S.Hundal,Advocate filed a Vakalatnama for Surjit Singh and also appeared for him on 22.2.2000.
Efforts were made to effect personal service on Dalip Singh, respondent No.2 but on account of non-availability of his correct address his personal service could not be effected. Dalip Singh allottee was reported to be the resident of village Rahon where he had reportedly been allotted some land. The report dated 19.1.2000 of Tehsildar, Khanna reveals that the patwari had made inquiries regarding the whereabouts of Dalip Singh son of Labh Singh from respectables in the village and they informed that there is no person of this name residing in the village nor had any person of that name ever resided in that village. It was also reported that the examination of the records did not reveal the existence of any such person in that village. The report of the Patwari endorsed by Lambardar Karnail Singh, Lambardar Raghbir Singh, Ram Kishan, Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat Rahon and also Hardial Singh, Panch, Gurnam Singh and Gulzar Singh. On 22.2.2000 the halqa patwari Balbir Singh was also personally present in Court.
When the case was taken up on 22.2.2000 the counsel for respondents No.2 and 3 were directed to produce Dalip Singh the original allottee on the next date i.e. 18.4.2000 for which date the case was also posted for arguments. Till the date of arguments on 30.5.2000 the parties neither produced Dalip Singh in person nor did they seek any time for doing so. Surjit Singh claiming to be the General Attorney of Dalip Singh failed to discharge his onus to ensure the personal appearance of Dalip Singh though personal appearance was all the more necessary particularly in view of the fact that the allotment was alleged to be the result of fraud. Rather for obvious reasons even the counsel for Surjit Singh, the alleged Power of Attorney of Dalip Singh stopped attending the proceedings after 22.2.2000.
I have heard counsel for the parties after going through the records. The narration regarding the failure of the parties to produce Dalip Singh goes a long way in reflecting adversely on credentials of Sh. Surjit Singh the alleged General Attorney of Dalip Singh. A person representing the other as his general Attorney is supposed to know his whereabouts and when so directed it becomes his legal obligation to produce his Principal. The suspicion against the credentials of Surjit Singh is further strengthened by the fact that the original Power of Attorney in favour of Surjit Singh son of Arjun Singh had not been produced on the record. The file of Managing Officer contains an unattested photo copy of Power of Attorney dated 31.8.1978. The allotment file of this case shows that since 1981 the case is being pursued exclusively by Surjit Singh son of Arjun Singh and there is not a single signature or thumb impression of the original allottee. The prosecution of claims for allotment of evacuee land exclusively by the holders of Power of Attorney excites an unfortunate inference that the original allottee had transferred the claim to the attorney. This goes a long a way in defeating the very purpose of rehabilitating the allottee.
It is noticed that the Rehabilitation authorities have allotted Rasta to Dalip Singh respondent. Only Consolidation authorities are competent to carve out a rasta and it is beyond the domain of the Managing Officer to allot a ‘rasta’ against a claim for land. In view of the dubious and peculiar manner in which the allotment was made coupled with the nature of the allotment and the hurried manner in which the property was sold to respondent No.3 there is left no manner of doubt that the allotment made in favour of Dalip Singh through his Attorney Surjit Singh is not a valid allotment; rather it is a bogus allotment.
The impugned order dated 8.4.1999 of the Deputy Commissioner-cum-Chief Settlement Commissioner does not withstand the test of judicial scrutiny. The hollowness of the claim of Dalip Singh whereby he acting through is Attorney had obtained allotment of rasta was not correctly appreciated. As far as respondent No.3 is concerned, I am of the opinion that he has failed to establish that he is a bonafide vendee. The records show that the General Attorney of Dalip Singh got recorded his possession over the land in dispute vide rapat dated 3.1.1989 and the respondents purchased the disputed land a few days thereafter on 16.1.1989. The respondent No.3 cannot be adjudged as a bonafide purchaser as the disputed land was recorded as a path and the same could not be allotted. The vendee purchased this path at his own peril with his eyes and ears open and that too for a paltry sum. With exercise of a little diligence he could easily find out that the land he was purchasing could not be sold being rasta. There is ample substance in assertion of petitioner that the sale has been made only to compound the complications in view of the bogus nature of the allotment.
It is unfortunate that the Deputy Commissioner-cum-Chief Settlement Commissioner, Kapurthala dismissed the case of the petitioners by a one page cryptic order dated 8.4.1999. The operative part of this order comprises of less than half a page in which the Chief Settlement Commissioner has observed that she was satisfied that no fraud had been committed. She also observed that the petitioners had not filed any appeal or revision since 1988. The order of the Chief Settlement Commissioner does not reveal as to what evidence persuaded her to hazard the observation that no fraud had been committed. She even failed to realise the baneful consequences flowing from a public path being allotted by the subordinate authorities.
The facts and events, which have been narrated above, are based on a careful reading of the record. Had the Chief Settlement Commissioner also perused the same with the desired application of mind there would have been no occasion for her to make these observations which are patently unmerited. Legally also a path carved out during Consolidation constituting public property cannot be “gifted away” like this.
The respondents also tried to prove their case by bringing on record a decision dated 27.4.2000 of the Civil Judge, Kapurthala in Civil Suit No.13 of 15.1.1999 in which permanent injunction was granted to them. I find that this judgement is based on the previous orders of the lower authorities in favour of Dalip Singh, which allotment had not been set aside by the competent authority. To my mind it was the bounded duty of the Deputy Commissioner-cum-Chief Settlement Commissioner to take cognizance of the allotment of a path by the Tehsildar (Sales)-cum-Managing Officer and appreciate the circumstances of the matter more closely. The delay in filing the revision petition deserves to be condoned because none of the aggrieved parties were associated with the allotment and there was a clear connivance between the revenue functionaries and the respondents.
Before parting with the case it may be pointed out that in view of the fact that the allotment was bogus, the Deputy Commissioner-cum-Chief Settlement Commissioner, Kapurthala is directed to carry out an inquiry into the remaining allotment/s, if any, made in pursuance of the said Goshwara and take action to cancel the same after due notice to the concerned parties.
A copy of this order be also sent to the Revenue Establishment-I branch together with copy of the Parchi allotment dated 8.4.1988 for taking necessary action against the Tehsildar Mahal-cum-Managing Officer, Kapurthala for having connived with private parties for allotment of public path in favour of the present petitioner under dubious circumstances.
Announced.
(Shyama
Mann)
Chandigarh, dated Financial Commissioner Revenue,
(Policy and Legal
Branch)
Orders of Financial Commissioner Revenue, Punjab in exercise of power u/s 33 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954 against the orders of Managing Officer, Rehabilitation (HQ) dated 4.11.1996.
The
matter herein pertains to allotment of land to Girdhari Lal son of Mohan Lal in
lieu of the land abandoned by him in Pakistan.
The facts of the case are that Sh. G.S.Nagra and G.K.Chawla, Advocates
made an application dated 13.3.95 on behalf of Girdhari Lal without obtaining
his signatures thereon, stating that the applicant was allotted land comprised
of Khasra No.1039 (1-3) Janub and 989min (0-15) situated in village Ranike-4
Tehsil Jagraon, District Ludhiana at the time of general allotment. He was minor at that time and through his
relation Sh. Sahib Ditta possession of the land was taken and the same was
given to some-one for cultivation. It
was further alleged that the allotment was wrongly cancelled without issuing
any notice on the plea that the applicant had not taken possession of the land. He further stated that he had made an
application on 11.6.58 to the office of Land Claims (Rehabilitation) Punjab at
Jalandhar and had not heard anything in response to that application.
2. The aforesaid application dated 13.3.95 was rejected by the Managing Officer on the ground that the applicant was unable to produce any document/proof in support of his allegation regarding allotment. The said order of the Managing Officer was challenged in appeal before the Settlement Commissioner who passed order dated 22.8.95 thereby setting aside the said order of the Managing Officer and remanded the case to the Managing Officer for fresh decision. The Managing Officer passed order dated 4.11.96 regarding the entitlement of Girdhari Lal for the allotment of land measuring 0-9¾ units. When the case was received back for re-verification, certain glaring irregularities were detected by the present Managing Officer and the instant reference was made for rejecting the claim of Girdhari Lal. Consequently it was considered necessary to hear Shri Girdhari Lal and therefore he was summoned through registered post as well as the Process Server to appear before me. He did not appear despite service. Instead he sent a telegram to the address of Joint Secretary Revenue & Rehabilitation Department intimating that he had filed a Civil Writ Petition No.9225 of 2000 before the Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court. He further stated that the department may take decision in accordance with law and the same may be filed alongwith the reply to the writ petition before the Hon’ble High Court. However, Sh. Girdhari Lal did not appear on the date fixed.
3. I have carefully perused the record and the reference of the Managing Officer and find that there is no merit in the claim of Shri Girdhari Lal. The claimant has not furnished any documentary evidence regarding the cancellation of his previous allotment on the basis of which according to his own admission, possession was taken through his relation Sh. Sahib Ditta and the same was given to some-one for cultivation. In the application dated 13.9.95 which was not signed by Girdhari Lal himself, which culminated in the order dated 4.11.96 of the Managing Officer thereby determining the entitlement of Girdhari Lal, there is a mention of the previous application dated 11.6.58. That was merely an application for restoration of some earlier application dated 20.6.57 which was stated to have been consigned to the record room on 30.7.57. There is no explanation to justify the silence of Shri Girdhari Lal for more than 37 long years in making the application dated 13.9.95 which too is not signed by him and is signed by Advocates only. He has nowhere justified this unconscionably long silence.
4. With a view to afford a fair and effective opportunity to the applicant for substantiating his claim and the allegations contained in his application, he was directed to appear in person on 7.11.2000. But instead of availing himself of this opportunity complacently he informed that he has filed a Civil Writ Petition No.9225 of 2000 in the Hon’ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana and the department may take any decision in accordance with law. The conduct of Girdhari Lal in not putting in appearance in this court unmistakably shows that there is no merit in his claim. It was obligatory for him to substantiate his claim by personal appearance. He has not bothered to produce the allotment order which according to him was cancelled. Action could inevitably be taken only if he had produced any allotment order as also the cancellation order or any other documentary evidence in support of his claim. The department cannot act in complete vacuum. The onus was heavy on the applicant to produce the aforesaid relevant documents in order to enable this department to adjudge the maintainability and genuineness of his claim. On the contrary, as per his own admission he had taken possession of the land through his relative Sahib Ditta and the same was given to some one for cultivation also. He also admits that 2-3 crops were sown during the time the land remained with him. This admission alone, in the absence of any formal cancellation letter demolishes his claim for any fresh allotment. Since the petitioner admits having received possession through his uncle, this also leads to the inevitable conclusion that the I-D register, on the basis of which his allotment case was prepared, had not been up dated. The Managing Officer was not justified, in relaying upon the report submitted by Kuldip Singh, Senior Assistant as it was contrary to facts as admitted by the petitioner himself.
5. In view of the above discussion I do not find any merit in the claim of the applicant. Therefore, the clearance conveyed vide letter dated 24.2.98 is withdrawn and in exercise of powers vested in me u/s 33 of the DP(C & R) Act, order dated 4.11.96 of the Managing Officer is set aside.
(SHYAMA MANN)
Chandigarh, dated Financial Commissioner Revenue,
the 14th Nov.,2000 Punjab.
(Policy and Legal
Branch)
1. The matter regarding allotment of land alleged to have been left by Hukam Singh in villages Chak Abbas and Chak Bagwala Tehsil Rahimyarkhan (Bahawalpur State) which was buried dead on the rejection of the claim of Hukam Singh vide order dated 4.6.1959 of the Managing Officer was revived after 25 years by one Inder Singh claiming to be General Power of Attorney of Kartar Singh son of Hukam Singh. In his application filed on 13.9.1984 to the Deputy Secretary, Rehabilitation he alleged that Hukam Singh son of Sher Singh father of Kartar Singh had left agricultural land measuring 70 Acres 2 kanals in the said villages. In that application he further stated that Hukam Singh had applied for allotment of land situated in Bahawalpur State on 25.2.1952 wherein an ex-parte order was passed on 11.8.1952 by R.C.Rehabilitation Department, Jalandhar and he made another application on 25.1.1954 wherein an ex-parte order was passed on 4.6.1959 by the A.R.III, Rehabilitation Department, Jalandhar. The said application dated 13.9.84 was processed by the Managing Officer but the same was dismissed vide order dated 8.10.1984 on the ground that his request for allotment had since been rejected by the Managing Officer on 4.6.1959 on the ground that the petitioner or his father had never filed any claim for allotment of land. An appeal was carried to the Settlement Commissioner against the order dated 8.10.1984 of the Managing Officer, who remanded the case vide his order dated 31.10.1984 for fresh decision observing that the petitioner had made applications for allotment of land before 31.12.63 as required under rule 67-A of Displaced Persons (C & R) Rules, 1955. On remand the Managing Officer again rejected the claim of petitioner vide his order dated 25.3.1985 on the ground that the petitioner had failed to lodge his claim for allotment before the appointed date i.e. 31.12.1963, despite the fact that there was ample time and opportunity for doing so during the period from 1959 to 1963. The petitioner challenged this order dated 25.3.1985 in appeal u/s 22 of the Displaced Persons (C & R) Act, 1954 before the Settlement Commissioner, who passed order dated 9.12.1985 thereby quashing the order dated 25.3.1985 of Managing Officer and remanding the case for fresh decision.
2. The case of the petitioner was considered at length by the Managing Officer Rehabilitation Department, Punjab, Chandigarh but he dismissed his petition vide order dated 19.8.1986. He took note of the fact that the order dated 4.6.1959 rejecting the application of the petitioner had been passed on the ground that Hukam Singh or the petitioner had never filed ‘mutalba’ claim, in the absence of which no allotment could be made and the intimation of that order had been sent to the petitioner. He also observed that even if no intimation regarding the rejection of his application by Managing Officer on 4.6.1959 was sent, it was incumbent of the petitioner to file aforesaid application before 31.12.1963 under rule 67-A of the Displaced Persons (C & R) Rules, 1955 in response to the Press Note issued in Sept.,1963 which was not done by him. He further took cognizance of the fact that after the passing of the order dated 4.6.1959, the petitioner remained silent for about 25 years and applied for allotment only on 13.9.1984 without relying upon any verified claim.
3. The order dated 19.8.1986 of the Managing Officer was challenged in appeal u/s 22 of the Displaced Persons (C & R) Act before the Settlement Commissioner, Rehabilitation Department, Punjab, Chandigarh by Kartar Singh, petitioner. The Settlement Commissioner accepted the appeal vide his order dated 30.3.1987 and while quashing the order dated 19.8.1986 he remanded the case to the Tehsildar-Sales-cum-Managing Officer, Rehabilitation Department with the direction that the matter should be examined afresh to determine the eligibility of the petitioner for the allotment of land to him.
4. In pursuance of this order of remand the matter was dealt with by Sh.S.M.Sharma, Tehsildar (Hqrs.)-cum-Managing Officer and he passed order dated 14.12.1988. Kartar Singh was declared eligible for the allotment of land measuring 23 Std. Acres 12½ units of land in lieu of land abandoned by him in Chak Abbas in Bahawalpur State. He directed that necessary Goshwara be prepared and sent as per option of the claimant after obtaining clearance from the Government.
Subsequently clearance was given at Govt. level vide No.P-IV(927)97/1270 dated 9.9.1997. This clearance was based on the office noting dated 3.9.1997. A perusal of office noting reveals that it was wrongly projected therein that the Managing Officer had passed the order dated 14.12.1988, thereby adjudging the entitlement of Kartar Singh to land measuring 23 Std. Acres 12½ units, after getting the inspection/examination of the relevant records. The office further submitted that the applications dated 25.2.1952, 25.1.1954 and 20.9.1955 had been made before the crucial date, i.e., 31.12.1963 as provided in rule 67-A of the Displaced Persons (C & R) Rules, 1955, and the order dated 14.12.1988 was passed by Tehsildar (Hqrs)-cum-Managing Officer in compliance with the order dated 30.3.1987 of the Settlement Commissioner and consequently the Managing Officer had correctly accepted the claim for allotment of land measuring 23-12½ Std. Acres to Hukam Singh through Kartar Singh.
5. In my opinion the clearance which was given on the misleading note of the office suffers from numerous glaring infirmities which cannot be ignored and the applications mentioned in the order dated 19.8.1999 of the Hon’ble High Court of Punjab & Haryana Annexure P-4 and P-5 to the Writ Petition No. 4012 of 1955 deserve to be rejected.
Initially in 1952, Hukam Singh is shown to have claimed allotment of land in lieu of land alleged to have been left in village Chak Abbas, tehsil & district Rahimyarkhan. He is shown to have become a resident of Bega, Tehsil Sonepat and claimed that as he originally belonged to Shehar Sultan, district Muzafargarh, Tehsil Alipur he had a right for allotment of land in tehsil Sonepat according to allocation of tehsil Alipur district Muzafarnagar. However, when Kartar Singhd applied through his General Power of Attorney Holder Inder Singh on 13.9.84, he claimed that Hukam Singh had left land in Mauza Chak Abbas and Chak Bagowala. The Managing Officer does not discuss in his order the reason for sudden change in the wishes of the claimant in relinquishing his preference for Haryana and opting for Punjab at this belated stage. Incidentally in Haryana Hukam Singh though contacted through the office of the Deputy Commissioner at the instance of Rehabilitation Department, Jalandhar was not traceable at the address given.
6. The claim allowed by Managing Officer vide his order dated 14.12.88 relates to only village Chak Abbas. There is not even an oblique mention regarding the land in village Chak Bagwala in the said order. The records do not show as to what happened to the request in respect of the land alleged to have been left in Chak Bagwala. Neither Kartar Singh pressed his claim regarding the land alleged to have been left in Chak Bagwala nor did the Managing Officer make any mention in his order dated 14.12.1988, whereby the claim regarding the land alleged to have been left in Chak Abbas alone was accepted.
The order of the Managing Officer is, lacking in application of mind and constitutes numerous material irregularities. The Managing Officer did not bother to verify the genuineness, validity and maintainability of the claim from any record whatsoever and he erroneously based his decision only on the “chhant jamabandi” and a few lines statement of Kartar Singh, whom nobody identified.
7. In accordance with Govt. policy prevailing immediately after Partition when lakhs of refugees migrated to India, the process for allotment started with the registration of ‘mutalba’ claims which were further verified by the Rehabilitation authorities from the documentary evidence before making the allotment. The applications of Hukam Singh for allotment of land were repeatedly rejected by different forums as detailed above on the ground that he had failed to file mutalba claim. At one stage it is clearly written that Hukam Singh failed to produce any documentary evidence in his favour whatsoever. But the persistent rejection of claim of Kartar Singh on the ground that he had not filed an appropriate claim did not fetch any response from him and he did not bother to file the desired claim and was contented with filing simple applications without any supporting material. According to the rules framed under East Punjab Refugee (Registration of Land Claim) Ordinance, 1948 followed by the East Punjab Refugee (Registration of Land Claim) Act, 1948 detailed procedure was prescribed for lodging and verification of the claims. A form known as Parcha Tasdiq was devised for recording the results of verification. It was inevitably for the reason that Hukam Singh and his son Kartar Singh who filed applications simpliciter and not proper claim, failed to satisfy the concerned Rehabilitation Authorities regarding the genuineness of their land claim; that their claim was rejected vide order dated 4.6.1959. However, while passing the order dated 14.12.1988, the Managing Officer did not at all try to satisfy himself regarding the genuineness and maintainability of the claim as also the credentials and identity of Kartar Singh.
8. He never called upon him to substantiate his claim by document/oral evidence. Hukam Singh wanted allotment of land in tehsil Sonepat as he originally belonged to Shahar Sultan and according to allocation of tehsil Alipur, District Muzafarnagar he had a right for allotment of land in Tehsil Sonepat. Why that aspect of the matter was ignored and suddenly after 29 years the claim was entered in Punjab is a matter which had been left totally untouched and unanswered by the Managing Officer. An unverified claim could be acceptable if there was some corroborative evidence to connect the claimant to the claim. Here no such connection is established. In this case such an exercise has not been undertaken by the Managing Officer nor was there any effort on the part of the claimant to supply any documents. The various judgements have been quoted in Managing Officer’s order totally out of context as they relate to a period when hordes of refugees had freshly migrated from Pakistan in object and utter misery. It was not the time to ask questions, it was time for giving them instant relief and for allowing their claims through summary procedures to alleviate their sufferings somehow. At that time the number of migrants was o large that the Rehabilitation authorities had to pass orders in open court in front of large number of people. There was mass migration in '‘Kaflas’ with survivors of an entire village settling in Camps and thereafter, seeking/getting temporary allotment villagewise and there was very little scope for manipulation. These judgements are not applicable to the present fact-situation wherein, in peace-time, after more than 35 years of Partition, a man suddenly comes up on the scene with a simple application and expects the same treatment in closed-door proceedings which was allowed immediately after partition when verifications were made in open gatherings.
9. It is a matter to note that Kartar Singh the present applicant was a major at the time of migration as the Power of Attorney dated 28.8.1984 executed by him in favour of Inder Singh describes his age as 55 years. Thus his date of birth works out somewhere in 1929 or 1930. Apparently he became a major either at the time of partition or somewhere after. Therefore, had he exercised due diligence he would have lodged and pursued his claim immediately after Partition. But neither Hukam Singh, the original claimant, nor Kartar Singh the present claimant filed any formal claim during these years and the entire case is based on sketchy and cryptic applications which are inconsistent in the original request there is no mention of any land having been left in village Bagwala; the application dated 1952 mentions only claim relating to Chak Abbas Khan, whereas the application made in 1984 mentions claim relating to Bhagwala also. The discrepancy and constant shift in the stand in driblets eludes and explanation. Interestingly, none of these applicants states that original claimant Hukam Singh had received any claim in village Kauli, Tehsil Patiala yet the Settlement Commissioner while remanding the case on 3.3.1987 suddenly mentioned in his order that “the Ld. Counsel has further contended that allotment in lieu of the land abandoned by applicant’s father in village Alipur, tehsil Muzaffargarh (West Pakistan)has been made in village Kauli, Tehsil and district Patiala in the name of appellant’s father but his request for allotment of land in lieu of Bhawalpur State remains unsatisfied.” The entire file relating to these applications does not record any allotment in village Kauli and observations of Settlement Commissioner are based on surmises. This is strengthened from the report of Patwari of village Kauli which states that no ownership entry has been found in the name of Hukam Singh son of Sher Singh or Kartar Singh son of Hukam Singh. Rather, Hukam Singh son of Sher Singh is reported to have purchased 3 bighas and 3 biswas of land in village Mohabatpur on 18.3.1959 which he sold away on 22.6.1977. It is reported that the village Mohabatpur is contiguous to village Kauli, but no land has been allotted in village Mohabatpur either.
10. The Managing Officer in his order dated 14.12.1988 recorded that Kartar Singh son of Hukam Singh states that he was the only legal heir of his deceased father. There is no death certificate of the original claimant on record. The record shows that the Managing Officer made no enquiries on the subject of Hukam Singh’s succession nor did he ask for any evidence in corroboration of Kartar Singh being the only legal heir. There is an application dated 1995 of one Gobind Ram of Rajpura, who also claimed to be attorney of Kartar Singh in 1995 and on whose initiative the file again started moving which states that the two brothers of Kartar Singh had already been allotted land. All this was on Govt. record when the case was put up to the officers for clearance in 1997 but the office did not make any effort to point out this discrepancy. Thus, the claim of Kartar Singh was decided without any cogent and convincing evidence.
11. There is no plausible explanation from the side of the original claimant as to why he failed to have recourse to the statutory remedies available under the Displaced Persons(C & R) Act, 1954 and continued to remain in deep slumber for 25 years. Rather the original claimant remained silent after 1959 by accepting the infirmities afflicting his claim. When he is reported to have died one Kartar Singh came up claiming to be son of Hukam Singh the original migrant and pursued his claim as if nothing had happened in-between. All that Kartar Singh stated was that orders were not conveyed to him. Why he did not himself make inquiries though he was an adult has not been explained. It is now expected that the present claimant Kartar Singh was working with the Consolidation Department of Haryana as Kanungo and has retired from the service in that State. All the addresses he has given were of Chandigarh and of Haryana and Punjab and not of distant places. He does not come out with any plausible explanation to condone the latches spreading over a period of 25 years. Financial Commissioner Revenue, Haryana was impleaded in the CWP No.4012 of 1999 but for some strange reason Kartar Singh did not press his claim against him.
12. It may be pertinently mentioned that even the identity of Hukam Singh and Kartar Singh whose applications stood rejected way back on 4.6.1959 without any further reaction from his side for a long period of 25 years does not stand unimpeachably established. If Hukam Singh and Kartar Singh were genuine claimants they must have filed mutalba claim in accordance with the policy of the Govt. at the very initial stage instead of banking on simple applications. Yet the alleged Hukam Singh kept quiet after 1959, and Kartar Singh became active at the age of 55 in 1984 and that too through an attorney Inder Singh who was an XEN posted at Chandigarh. For some strange reason an Inland letter dated 17.11.1988 was sent to the Govt./Managing Officer informing that the Power of Attorney given in favour of Inder Singh had been revoked.
13. In view of the infirmities detailed above in the order dated 14.12.1988 as detailed above, the said order does notwithstanding the test of close in-depth scrutiny. Therefore, while setting aside the said order, the clearance already given by the Govt. to the land claim of Kartar Singh is hereby withdrawn. Consequently the applications Annexure P-4 and P-5 of the Writ Petition No.4012 of 1999 are rejected.
However, in order to afford yet another opportunity to Kartar Singh to establish his claim in the face of these infirmities, the matter is remanded to Managing Officer, Rehabilitation, who will take a fresh decision after making a detailed enquiry in light of observations contained in this order. Sh. Kartar Singh should report to the Managing Officer on 26.9.2000. A copy of this order should be sent to him for compliance.
(SHYAMA MANN)
Chandigarh, dated Financial Commissioner Revenue,
The 13th Sept., 2000 Punjab.