OM PRAKASH Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Judgment of the court was delivered by

(2.) THIS appeal is against the order of cancellation of theallotment made in favour of the appellant's father in 1948 under theDisplaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954 (hereinaftercalled the Act) in the following circumstances.

(3.) LASTLY it was contended that the authorities were in error in holding that there was no material for them to hold that the land which was owned by the appellant's father in Pakistan was not canal irrigated land because the first Fard Taqsim received from the Pakistan authorities did not even show the name of the appellant's father as owner of any land in Pakistanand when the second Fard Taqsim was received by the Rehabilitationauthorities from Pakistan they did show the appellant's father as owner ofthe land but Khasra Girdawari which was received with it did not showthe entire land as canal irrigated. In these circumstances it was urgedthat no reliance could be placed upon these contradictory documents whichwere sent by Pakistan authorities from time to time. The learned Advocatealso contended that the best evidence which could have shown the Classification of the land owned by the appellant's father was the 'Shud Kar'entries of the Canal Department which would corroborate the appellant'scontention that the entire land was canal irrigated but when these document?<PG>944</PG> were sent for, the Pakistan authorities said that the 'Shud Kar' had beendestroyed and subsequently the Deputy Commissioner tor India in Pakistanhad informed that the Pakistan authorities were not co-operative in supplying the entries in 'Shud Kar'. It was also contended by the learnedAdvocate that the Jamabandi papers which are the most important revenuerecords ought to have been looked into instead of the Fard Taqsim andthe Khasra Girdawari and if so examined the Jamabandi papers would haveshown that the land which the appellant's father owned was canal land.