BALBIR SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CM No.5180-LPA of 2017 Prayer in this application is for condonation of delay of 230 days in filing the appeal.

(2.) In pursuance to the said report and observations made therein, application dtd. 3/4/1998 addressed to the Special Secretary, Rehabilitation Department, was submitted by the appellant, which remained pending with the Managing Officer (Headquarters). When no further action was taken, he approached the Special Secretary, Revenue-cum-Claims Commissioner, Punjab, which led to the passing of the order dtd. 6/5/2013 (Annexure P-1), wherein the claim of the appellant was rejected on the ground that the same was barred 2 of 9 by limitation as it has been filed after 31 years from the cut off date as fixed under the first proviso to Rule 67-A of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Rules, 1955, according to which a displaced person was mandated to file application for any claim including deficiency, if any, in the area allotted to him on or before 31/12/1963 and after a delay of 35 years before the competent authority i.e. the Managing Officer, where he filed his claim/application in the year 1998 as the appellant had initiated the proceedings for deficiency in allotment of land qua Uttam Singh, his uncle, in the year 1991 before the Consolidation Officer, which is not the competent authority.

(3.) This order of the Claims Commissioner, Punjab, was challenged by the appellant by filing an appeal before the Financial Commissioner (Revenue), Punjab. Before the Appellate Authority, appellant had asserted that a civil suit was filed by the appellant for declaration to the effect that the Department of Rehabilitation as also the Consolidation Department be directed to render the details of the allotment of the land of the persons mentioned therein, which was decreed ex parte on 4. 12.2008 directing the Rehabilitation Department along with the Consolidation Department and the Revenue Department to supply the records as sought for by the appellant and to find out if there is any defect or deficiency, the same be corrected and rectified as per the rules. On this basis, he asserted that since a direction has been issued by the Civil Court, department was bound to rectify and make good the deficiency in allotment of the land as mentioned in the report dtd. 2/11/1994 by the Consolidation Officer.