BAWA SINGH Vs. CHIEF SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Bawa Singh in this writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, has sought to impugn the order (Annexure 'D') passed by the Chief Settlement Commissioner Rehabilitation Department, Jullundur, dated November 4, 1967, reviewing the order of his predecessor (Annexure 'C') passed, in favour of the petitioner, on January 7, 1967. The petitioner and respondent No. 3 are both displaced persons and the dispute related to the allotment of house No. 240 in village Lamba Pind, Tehsil and District Jullundur. The petitioner had applied for the transfer of this house in his favour on the basis of continuous possession for the last 17 years. The enquiry made by the Tehsildar (Sales) revealed that the possession of the petitioner was as a tenant under respondent No. 3. The Tehsildar (Sales) vide order (Annexure 'A') reported that the allotment of the house in dispute was in favour of respondent No. 3. Bawa Singh went in appeal against that order before the Assistant Commissioner Settlement with powers of Settlement Commissioner who upheld the same. The revision preferred by Ajit Singh was dismissed by the Chief Settlement Commissioner on January 7, 1976, vide order (Annexure 'D'). Vide this order, the Chief Settlement Commissioner upheld the allotment of this house in favour of the petitioner after assessing the material on the file and taking into account the fact that the rent note alleged to have been executed in his favour, by Bawa Singh petitioner, had not been produced in spite of repeated opportunities given to him for the purpose. Ajit Singh applied for the review of the order (Annexure 'C') which was allowed by the Chief Settlement Commissioner vide the impugned order on the ground that the rent note had been produced before him by Ajit Singh, according to which, the petitioner was a tenant under him. In this petition Bawa Singh has challenged the order mainly on the ground that the Chief Settlement Commissioner did not have any powers to review his own order or the order passed by his predecessor.

(2.) Notice of this petition was given to the respondents, but none of them has put in appearance in this Court, nor has filed any reply to the same.

(3.) I have gone through the petition and the order (Annexure 'C').