GIAN SINGH Vs. CHIEF SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant before us had filed a writ petition for quashing the order dated 11th January, 1963 passed by Mr. Gulab L. Ajwani, Additional Settlement Commissioner, (with delegated powers of the Chief Settlement Commissioner) purporting to reject the claim of the appellant for allotment of agricultural land in Delhi, on the ground that the appellant was of Punjabi extraction (an agriculturist from Sindh as also West Punjab now in Pakistan), and was not entitled to allotment of agricultural land non the basis of a verified claim in Delhi under rule 64 (a) of the Displaced Persons (Compensation & Reha.bilitation) Rules, 1955. The writ petition was dismissed by the learned Single Judge. Hence this appeal. Rule 64 is as below : "Any land owner whose claim was registered under the East Punjab Refugees (Registration of Claims) Act, 1948 (East Punjab Act VIII of 1948) or under the Patiala Refugees (Registration of Land Claims) Ordinance, 2004 B.K. (Ordinance No. X of 2004 BK) and who has been allotted land outside the States of Punjab and Patiala and East Punjab State Union shall be governed by the provisions hereinafter contained in this rule : (a) If such person had refused allotment of land made to him in the State of Punjab or the Patiala and East Punjab States Union, he shall be treated as a displaced person having no claim in respect of agricultural land and accordingly the provisions of rules 62 and 63 shall apply to him. Provided that any person who surrendered any land allotted to him in the State of Punjab or Patiala and East Punjab State Union before the 31st December, 1955, may, on production of a certificate issued by the authorised officer of the Government of Punjab or Patiala and East Punjab State Union, as the case may be, evidencing such surrender, be allowed to retain the land allotted to him in the district of Ganganagar in the State of Rajasthan on condition that if he is in possession of any area in excess of that which should have been allotted to him in the State of Punjab or East Punjab State Union, he shall either surrender such excess area or pay the price therefor at the rate mentioned in rule 56. (b) If such person had been allotted land in the State of Punjab or Patiala and East Punjab States Union as well as in any other State, he shall be allowed to retain the land allotted to him in the State of Punjab or Patiala and East Punjab State Union and shall be required to surrender the land allotted to him in any other State. "(c) If such person had not been offered allotment of any land in the State of Punjab or Patiala and East Punjab State Union, he may be allowed to retain the allotment of agricultural land, other than a grove, in any other State and any area in excess of that which should have been allotted to him in the State of Punjab or Patiala and East Punjab State Union, shall be surrendered by him, or any deficiency, as the case may be, shall be made good : (d) If such person had been allotted land in the area which on and from 1st November, 1956 is comprised in the Union Territory of Himachal Pradesh or Delhi, after surrendering his claim for allotment of land in the territory which formed part of the State of Punjab or Patiala and East Punjab State Union as it existed on 31st October, 1956, lie may be allowed to retain the land allotted to him in the said area on condition that if the extent of land allotted to him in the said area on condition that if the extent of land in his possession in the said area is in excess of that which should have been allotted to him in the said part, he surrenders such extent in excess : Provided that any such person may be permitted to retain the excess area if he pays the price therefor at the rate mentioned in rule 56. Explanation :-A displaced person whose allotment of agricultural land outside the State of Punjab or Patiala and East Punjab State Union has been cancelled and who has not been allotted any land in any of those States, may, subject to the availability of land, be allotted agricultural land in either of those States."

(2.) The appellant held agricultural lands in Sindh as also in West Punjab. On the basis of a claim for compensation which was verified under the provisions of the Displaced Persons (Claims) Act, 1950, in 1952 the appellant was temporarily allotted certain lands in the village Kilokari (Delhi) on 2.8.1948. This allotment was subsequently varied by orders passed in 1951 and 1955. The appellant was moving the authorities under the Displaced Persons (Claims) Act for enhancing the extent of his claim. An order in his favour in this respect was passed by Shri H.A. Mahtani, Special Claims Officer, on 19th December, 1952. Subsequently, on 31st March, 1953, however, Shri Anant Ram Malhotra, Claims Commissioner (Add), dismissed an application of the present appellant for improvement of his claim. It was at this stage that Shri Gulab L. Ajwani purported to act by way of suo motu revision. A notice was issued to the appellant to show cause why the order of Shri Anant Ram Malhotra be not revised suo motu. When the appellant appeared in response to this notice he was told by Shri Ajwani (apparently orally) that under Rule 64 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation & Rehabilitation) Rules, 1955 the appellant was not entitled to any allotment as he had no valid claim for allotment of land in Delhi. After hearing the appellant the impugned order was passed by Shri Ajwani taking the view that by the letter of 15th July, 1955 the appellant had refused allotment of land in the Punjab as compensation for the claim held by him and, therefore, his case fell under Rule 64 (a) and he was not entitled to have any claim to the allotment of any agricultural land in Delhi.

(3.) While disposing of the writ petition the learned single Judge did not expressly approve of the view expressed by Shri Ajwani. The learned Judge, however, stressed the fact that under Rule 64(d) the Government had the discretion to allow the appellant to retain the land allotted to him in Delhi, but the appellant did not have any substantive right to the allotment of such land in Delhi and that under Article 226 of the Constitution the court did not have the power to order the Government to allot the land to the petitioner in Delhi and, therefore, the court was unable to quash the order. This appeal is against the dismissal of the writ petition that ground.