ASTHAN BHAGAT DWARA Vs. CHIEF SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal against the judgment of a division bench of the High court of Punjab dismissing an appeal against the judgment of a learned Single Judge in a petition under Article 226 of the constitution. The division bench relied upon an earlier decision of the court reported in Samadh Parshotam Das v. Union of India and Others the facts of the case are as follows :

(2.) The appellant is Asthan Bhagat Dwara and is conducting the proceedings through one Khem Singh. The case had a chequered career in the rehabilitation Department. The claim was for allotment of certain lands which the Asthan Bhagat Dwara had lost as a result of partition of India. The facts need not be referred to in detail, because numerous orders have been passed by the various authorities. The final order was in revision before the Chief Settlement Commissioner, Jullundur, Punjab, by which he dismissed the revision application which arose from the cancellation of allotment of lands in favour of the Asthan Bhagat Dwara. It appears that at first the Asthan Bhagat Dwara had succeeded in getting allotment of lands in lieu of those lost across the border. But later these orders were cancelled and finally the Chief Settlement Commissioner, Jullundur, Punjab, upheld the order of cancellation. In the High court the matter was considered by the learned Single Judge. In a brief judgment, he accepted the finding that the samadhis were not capable of shifting from the place where they were and, therefore, it could not be held that samadhi was a displaced person for purpose of the application of the law for allotment of lands. The learned single Judge also referred to the division bench case to which we have referred earlier.

(3.) This matter was specifically before us in an appeal from the judgment on which the High court relied. The judgment has not yet been reported. It is Samadh Parshotam Das v. The Union of India and Others The decision of this court clearly shows that in such circumstances no allotment of land can be made and therefore the orders of the High court, both by the Division bench as well as by the learned Single Judge, cannot be assailed. Thematter is covered by the authorities to which we have referred. The result therefore is that the appeal fails, but in the circumstances of this case, we make no order about costs.