BACHAN SINGH Vs. DEPUTY SECRETARY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner Dr. Bachan Singh, who is now stated to be 82 years of age, purchased a 12 marla plot in Khasra No. 4578/2 in District Faridkot from a Muslim resident in the year 1946. The mutation of the plot was also sanctioned in his favour. During consolidation proceedings in the early 1950's, the petitioner's name was entered against a take and he was also held entitled to some land in khasra No. 6636. It appears that the petitioner was in service and was thus not staying in Faridkot. The Rehabilitation Department treating the property aforesaid to be evacuee property, sold the same by way of auction. The petitioner came to know about the mistake committed by the Department in the year 1972 and immediately made a representation to the Deputy Secretary, who after examining the record, vide his order (Annexure P-1) dated 22.5.1984 directed that the petitioner should be provided an alternative area in lieu of the land mistakenly sold by the Department. The petitioner thereafter applied to the Tehsildar Sales for the compliance of the order aforesaid but the Tehsildar determined that the petitioner was entitled to get a holding of the value of Rs. 4685/- but nevertheless a smaller holding of the value of Rs. 1615/- was allotted to him and the balance property worth Rs. 3070/- was not allotted. The petitioner thereafter made an application to the Tehsildar Sales that property of the remaining value be also allotted to him but no further steps were taken. Repeated efforts by the petitioner to get relief due to an apartment mistake committed by the Rehabilitation Department proved futile.

(2.) The petitioner has filed the present petition praying that the Rehabilitation Department having sold the land, which admittedly belonged to the petitioner and was not evacuee property (as he had purchased the land prior to the year 1947 from a Muslim resident) was entitled to an alternative piece of land of the value taken away from him.

(3.) Despite repeated opportunities, no reply has been filed by the respondents despite the passage of over ten years. The petitioner has also filed an additional affidavit on 16.7.2001 alongwith an order of the Financial Commissioner dated 13.5.1998 (Annexure P-6) wherein it has been noted that the petitioner was entitled for alternative land but it would not be appropriate to give him allotment in small parts here and there and that Rehabilitation Department must allot the entire land of the value of Rs. 69122/- (in view of the escalation in prices) at one consolidated place. It appears that obtaining the aforesaid order, the petitioner also served a legal notice (Annexure P7) dated 15.8.1999 through his counsel and the Department vide letter (Annexure P-8) dated 20.9.1999 wrote a letter to the petitioner asking him as to whether he would opt for the allotment of land in a rural or an urban area. The petitioner's counsel vide letter (Annexure P-10) dated 9.11.1999 replied that the petitioner was interested in allotment of land in an urban area. It is the petitioner's case that no further action has since been taken.