KEHAR SINGH Vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners are Harijans of village Bhaddarwadh, tehsil Malerkotla, district Sangrur. A piece of Nazool land measuring 41.5 Bighas was available for allotment to Harijan families with regard to which rules had been framed in 1956 called Nazool Land (Transfer) Rules, 1956. According to Rule 3-A of the said rules the Nazool land measuring less than 10 acres was to be allotted to individual Harijans with whom the land was already on lease and the land measuring more than 10 acres was to be allotted to Co-operative Societies of Harijans. This piece of land measured less than 10 acres and, therefore, had to be allotted to the persons already holding lease thereof. In 1961, when this land was claimed by the petitioners, it was on lease with Sarvshri Kartara, Sardara and Jangir to whom it had been allotted. The plea of the petitioners was that Kartara, Sardara and Jangir had taken the lease not on their own behalf individually but on behalf of all the Harijans of the village and for this reason an agreement was entered into on September 14, 1961 that the whole land should be allotted in favour of all Harijans of the village so that all the Harijan families may get benefit therefrom. This agreement was not confirmed by Sardara and Jangir as they alleged that the agreement had not been made by them nor did they affix their thumb impressions thereto. The land was, therefore, not allotted to the petitioners who are the Harijans of the village. The present petition was then filed in order to get the allotment of the land in their favour by virtue of the agreement dated September 14, 1961. According to the return, the land being less than 10 acres in area had to be allotted to the persons already holding lease thereof, and, therefore, could not be allotted to the petitioners. It is admitted by the petitioners also that the land was then on lease with Kartara, Sardara and Jangir, but their allegation is that they were holding the land on lease on behalf of all the Harijan families of the village and not on their own. This fact has not been admitted. The petitioners have, thus, no right to claim that the land should be allotted to them collectively as such an allotment would be contrary to the rules. There is thus no merit in this writ petition which is dismissed, but without an order as to costs. Petition dismissed.