SADHU SINGH Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE litigation culminating in the present appeal (by certifcate under Article 133 (1) (b) of the Constitution) which is directed against the judgment and order dated 25/09/1967,of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in C.W. N. 1630 of 1962 setting aside the allotmentn dated 23/05/1960 made by Naib Tehsildar-cum-Managing Officer, Fatehabad, District Hissar in favour of Madan Mohan and others, and orders dated 18/04/1962 and 21/07/1962 of the Assistant Settlement Commisioner and Chief Settlement Commissioner respectively on the finding that "no part of holding which formed part of the land allotted to respondent No. 14, Mehta Lal Chand, (hereinafter referred to as 'the respondent') could, during the subsistence of such allotment and without its cancellation, be allotted to any one else" has had a very chequered career extending over well nigh two decades. It appears that the respondent who is a displaced person from Pakistan was found entitled to an allotment of 113 standard acres and 3 units of land in lieu of 120 acres of land held by him as owner in Bhawalpur (Pakistan). Against the aforesaid entitlement, the respondent was allotted 90 standard acres and 6 units of evacuee land between 1953 and 1958 in different villages of Tehsil Fatehabad, District Hissar including two areas measuring (1) 13 standard acres and 31/2 units and (2) 13 standard acres and 131/2 units in village Bahmniwala, allottment of which was made on 1/03/1957 and 10/10/1958 respectively. Pursuant to the above allotment of 13 standard acres and 31/2 units made in his favour in village Bahmniwala vide Sanad dated 6/03/1957 (Annexure 'C' to the writ petition), the respondent was given possession of the plots of land comprised in khasra Nos. 1411 min, 1412 min, 1472 min, 1241 min, 1242, 1243, 1244, 1245, 1246, 1247, 1621, 1622 to 1635 (14 khasras) 1642, 1644, 164 5/06/1957. THE respondent continued to remain in possession of the aforesaid plots of land till Rabi 1960 when consolidation of holdings were undertaken in village Bahmniwala. Without caring to look into the revenue record, the Consolidation Officer instead of showing the aforesaid allotted area in Bahmniwala in the name of the respondent included the same in the kurrah (area) of the Custodian. On coming to know about this irregularity, the respondent filed objections before the Consolidation Officer and requested him to rectify the mistake. THE Consolidation Officer by his order dated 23/03/1960 consigned the objection petition of the respondent to the record room observing that 'in the absence of the relevant record which, as per the report of the Wasal Baqi Niwas, has been despatched to Jullundur for checking purposes, the factum of allotment cannot be varified and as it is necessary to take proceedings under Section 21 (2) of the Consolidation of Holdings Act in village Bahmniwala in this very month, the record cannot be awaited any further'. THE Consolidation Officer further observed that since it appeared from a perusal of the copy of the Sanad (allotment) that the entire 'kurrah' consisted of almost evacuee land bearing khasra numbers mentioned in the Sanad of allotment, the respondent could, on the receipt of the record, get the area at the place where, according to him, the evacuee land mentioned by him in his application was situate. By his order dated 23/05/1960, the Naib Tehsildar-cum-Managing Officer, Fatehabad, however, made the following allotments out of an area of 58 standard acres and 7 units situate in Bahminwala which included the khasra numbers already allotted to the respondent but which according to the 'Fard Fazla' (statement of surplus area) prepared by the concerned Patwari appeared to be available for allotment:- <FRM>JUDGEMENT_787_SUPP1_1980Html1.htm</FRM>

(2.) AGGRIEVED by this order of the Naib Tehsildar-cum-Managing Officer which adversely affected the allotment already made in his favour, the respondent preferred an appeal to the Assistant Settlement Commissioner (with powers of Settlement Commissioner), Punjab, Jullundur contending that 13 standard acres and 31/2 units of land in Bahmniwala allotted to him in 1957 had been erroneously included in the 'kurrah' of the Custodian at the time of the Consolidation operations and that the same had now been erroneously allotted without his knowledge to Bagga Singh, Inder Singh, Madan Mohan Singh and his sons. Curiously enough, the Assistant Settlement Commissioner (with powers of Settlement Commissioner) while conceding that the aforesaid 13 standard acres and 31/2 units and 13 standard acres 13 1/2 units in village Bahmniwala were allotted in favour of the respondent on 17/06/1957 and 10/10/1958 respectively and that there was no cancellation order in respect thereof and that the colsolidation authorities should not have withdrawn the area from the name of the respondent who had through no fault of his been put to a lot of difficulty and that it was just and proper that the matter of allotment to which he was entitled be settled once for all in such a way that whole of the area is given to him permanently in one village, rejected the appeal by his order dated 18/04/1962 observing that there was no good ground for interfering with the allotment of the appellants and that it would be open to the respondent to apply to the Naib Tehsildar-cum-Managing Officer to make up the shortfall in his area by allotment of some other land which may be available in that village. Dissatisfied with the order of the Assistant Settlement Commissioner, the respondent took the matter in revision to the Deputy Secretary (Rehabilitation) exercising the powers of the Chief Settlement Commissioner who also after paying lip sympathy dismissed the revision on the ground that it was time barred. AGGRIEVED by these orders, the respondent moved the High Court of Punjab and Haryana by means of the aforesaid petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution. The High Court by its judgment and order dated 25/09/1962 set aside the aforesaid theree impugned orders holding that they were wholly without jurisdiction and the Tehsildar-cum-Managing Officer was not authorised to allot to the appellants the land which was already comprised in a subsisting valid allotment of the respondent. It is against this judgment and order of the High Court that the present appeal is directed.

(3.) HE is entitled to make improvements on the land with the assent of the Custodian and is entitled to compensation in the manner provided in the Punjab Tenancy Act. (Clause 7)