VIRSA SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) 3 Standard Acres and 13 1/3 Units of agricultural land was allotted to Buta singh, a displaced person, in village Begumpur. Hadbast No. 129 (sic), tahsil phillaur, district Jullundur, according to his entitlement. Shri S. P. Katyal Assistant registrar-cum-Managing Officer, Rehabilitation Deptt. , Punjab, found that the valuation of the area actually allotted to Buta Singh against his abovementioned entitlement came to 6-8 Standard Acres against 3-13 1/2 Standard Acres worked out by the field staff. This mistake was found to have occurred because of some action of the Consolidation Department and not on account of any error on the part of the Rehabilitation Department. Shri S. D. Katyal thought that the allottee had received allotment in excess of his entitlement to the extent of 2-10 1/2 standard Acres. A show-cause notice is therefore, stated to have been issued to buta Singh who had admittedly died before the issue of the notice. The notice issued to Buta Singh is stated to have been received by his son Milkha Singh. Whether Milkha Singh actually received the notice or not, the fact remains that even he did not appear in response to the notice, which was addressed to his dead father. Admittedly no notice was ever issued to any of the appellants and none was served on appellants Nos. 1 and 2, the other sons of Buta Singh. By an ex parte order, dated March 29, 1963 (copy Annexure 'a' to the writ petition), the managing Officer cancelled the allotment of Buta Singh to the extent of 2-10 1/2 standard Acres in the abovementioned village. It may be remembered that the order was passed in ignorance of the factum of death of Buta Singh and had been passed against a dead person When the appellants came to know of the order, they preferred an appeal against the same which was rejected by the order of Shri gurdial Singh. Assistant Settlement Commissioner with powers of Settlement commissioner, dated December 16, 1964. A further petition for revision of that order filed by the appellants was dealt with by Shri J. M. Tandon, Chief Settlement Commissioner, Punjab, Jullundur, on september 1, 1965. The area which had been retrieved from the appellants in pursuance of the order of the Managing Officer having been found by the Chief settlement Commissioner to be more than what could be taken away from them under the impugned order, the case was remanded to the Naib Tahsildar (Sales)cum-Managing Officer, Nakodar, with a direction to find out the quantum of land which was to be retrieved in implementation of the cancellation order. Respondents Nos. 5 and 6 who had in the meantime bid for the retrieved area at an auction were given the option to treat the entire auction in their favour as cancelled or to retain the balance of the area along with the proportionate price of the land which had to be restored in the name of Buta Singh. It was in the abovementioned circumstances that the three sons of Buta Singh, the appellants before us, filed Civil Writ 2917 of 1965, in this Court,

(2.) THE first contention advanced on behalf of the appellants before the learned single Judge at the hearing of the writ petition was to the effect that the cancellation of the allotment without giving the allottee a reasonable opportunity of being heard, as provided in Rule 102 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Rules, 1955, was illegal and all the impugned orders were, therefore liable to be set aside. It was not disputed at any stage that the notice of the proposed cancellation was issued to a dead person, that the same was not served on appellants Nos. 1 and 2, and that no notice was issued to any of the appellants and none of them appeared before the Managing Officer. The contention of the appellants was rejected by the learned Single Judge on two grounds, viz. :- (i) that there was no merit in the contention of the appellants as they had been heard at the appellate and the revisional stages: and (ii) that the point of non-service of notice had not been raised by the appellants before the departmental authorities.

(3.) THE only other argument addressed to the learned Single Judge on behalf of the appellants was that even if the impugned orders of cancellation were upheld, the petitioners were entitled to purchase the excess area and the department was bound to give them an option to do so. The learned Judge held that this matter had to be dealt with according to the rules and instructions of the department and all that could be done by this Court was to direct the authorities concerned to consider the application of the writ petitioners for purchase of their land after keeping in view the rights of the auction-purchasers. It is against the judgment of the learned Single Judge dismissing the writ petition of the appellants on the abovesaid two grounds that the present appeal has been filed by the unsuccessful writ petitioners under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent of this Court.