LAKHBIR SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A piece of land measuring 6 Kanals 4 marlas is the bone of contention between the petitioner and the third respondent. The petitioner claimed the allotment of this land. Vide order dated April 28, 1988 the Tehsildar rejected this claim on the ground that the petitioner was not in continuous possession from Rabi 1984. The petitioner filed an appeal under Section 8 of the Punjab Package Deal Properties (Disposal) Act, 1976. The Sales Commissioner accepted his claim and remitted the matter to the Tehsildar. The third respondent who is a displaced person filed a revision petition before the Chief Sales Commissioner. It was dismissed vide order dated April 22, 1991. A second revision petition before the Commissioner also met with the same fate. A copy of the order dated April 29, 1993 is at Annexure P-5 with the writ petition. Undaunted, he filed a petition before the Financial Commissioner. Vide order dated May 29, 1997 the Financial Commissioner has accepted the claim It has been found that Lakhbir Singh, the present petitioner, was ineligible for allotment of land. Thus, the orders passed by the Sales Commissioner, the Chief Sales Commissioner and the Commissioner have been set aside. Aggrieved by the order, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition. He prays that the orders, copies of which are at Annexures P-1 and P-6 respectively, be quashed.

(2.) THE claim made on behalf of the petitioner has been controverted in the written statement filed on behalf of the respondents.

(3.) MR . Manhas, learned counsel for the petitioner, contends that the authorities have erred in holding that the petitioner was not eligible. It is contended that the petitioner has been in possession since 1984. According to the press note the petitioner was eligible. This claim has been controverted by Mr. Nagra, appearing for the third respondent. It has been submitted that the land in dispute is a part of the evacuee property. It was meant to be allotted to the displaced persons. The petitioner is not a displaced person. He had unauthorisedly occupied the land. Since he was not eligible for the transfer of land, the impugned orders are legal and valid.