HARBANS SINGH TARA SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner challenges the order passed by the authorities under the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act and relevant Rules, who by the respective orders disallowed the claim of the petitioner for allotment of the property as an excess land.

(2.) THE claim of the petitioner was as regards 32 kanals 5 marlas of land equivalent to two standard acres 16/3/4 units which was treated as having been cancelled from the allotment by the Managing Officer vide his order dated 29.10.1963. Notwithstanding the cancellation order, the petitioner claimed that he remained in the possession and the order remained unimplemented. However, when this property had been transferred to one Gurbachan Singh, the petitioner challenged the transfer and the Tehsildar-cum-Managing Officer, Kapurthala vide his order dated 19.06.1970 upheld the challenge and retrieved the land. The petitioner had made a request for purchase of the property of the cancelled allotment and it appears that the papers were pending consideration for determination of the price at which the property could be transferred to the petitioner. Although the cancellation of allotment to Gurbachan Singh had been made as early as on 07.09.1970, no action had been taken by the department to transfer the land to the petitioner or to finalize the sale purchase of the cancelled area.

(3.) LEARNED counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner contends that a person in possession always has a preferential right for consideration to a person, who may stake a claim as a displaced person. The learned counsel refers to a decision of Division Bench in Bishan Singh and others v. Chief Settlement Commissioner and others, 1973 PLJ 183 that even if other property is available for the satisfaction of unsatisfied claimants, the Managing Officer must consider the question whether the unsatisfied claimant could be satisfied from the other property in the village or elsewhere and it would be only in the extreme case where the claimant cannot be satisfied from other property, the right of an unsatisfied claimant for allotment could have preference over the right of the sitting persons to have the property transferred to them. It is the contention of the petitioner that as persons, who were actually in possession and who were successful in having a subsequent allotment made to Gurbachan Singh set aside, could not have been displaced at the instance of an unsatisfied claimant without the State addressing, the issue whether any other property was available or not. Although the argument is attractive, it must be seen in the context of how the Financial Commissioner has himself dealt with the specific point urged by the petitioner before him. The Financial Commissioner has found that after the cancellation of allotment to Gurbachan Singh on 19.06.1970, the petitioner took no steps to secure an allotment by appropriate transfer. If the property, which remained at the disposal of the Government as a cancelled allotment was not followed up with a transfer to the petitioner in the manner known to law, then it shall not avail to the petitioner to invoke the Punjab Package Deal Property Rules of 1976. It is in this context the Hon'ble Supreme Court judgment, which has been relied on by the Financial Commissioner obtains relevance. The decision referred to above is an authority for two aspects.