SANT NIHAL SINGH Vs. CHIEF SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal under clause 10 of the Letters Patent has arisen in the following circumstances : By an order of the Assistant Registrar, Land Claims, dated the 17th of May, 1956, one Mohan Singh, a displaced person from Lyallpur, was given leasehold rights in three different villages, including 2 standard acres and 14 units of evacuee land in village Trar, District Jullundur. On 23rd of April, 1957, these leasehold rights were converted into quasi-permanent allotment by the same officer. A week later i.e. on 30th of April, 1957, proprietary rights were conferred on Mohan Singh. Thereafter, on 6th of May, 1957. Mohan Singh entered into an agreement with Sant Nihal Singh, by which the allotment of land made in favour of Mohan Singh including the land in Trar, was exchanged with 12 standard acres of land part of which was owned by Sant Nihal Singh originally and the remaining was allotted to him in lieu of the land left by him in Pakistan, in two villages in Batala Tehsil or Gurdaspur District.

(2.) Meanwhile, one Dewan Singh, predecessor-in-interest of respondents 2 to 4 in the present Letters Patent Appeal, filed an appeal against the order of the Assistant Registrar, Land Claims, dated 17th of May, 1956 referred to above, granting leasehold rights to Mohan Singh. The ground taken by him was that he had already been allotted land in this village Trar and to the extent of nearly 5 Standard acres, he was still an unsatisfied claimant and he should have been allotted the 2 standard acres and 14 units, which have been given to Mohan Singh in that village. The appeal coming before the Assistant Settlement Commissioner, he held as follows :-

(3.) A preliminary objection has been raised on behalf of the respondents that on the date when the matter was decided by the learned Single Judge, Dewan Singh was dead and his legal representatives had not been brought on the record. No such objection was raised before the learned Single Judge where the proceedings were taken ex parte against Dewan Singh. In the present Letters Patent Appeal sons of Dewan Singh have only been impleaded as his heirs and legal representatives. Thus this appeal is quite competent and has been brought against existing persons and it is not suggested that the three persons impleaded are not the legal heirs of deceased Dewan Singh. Apart from this there is no material on the file, not even an affidavit put on behalf of the respondent to show as to when Dewan Singh has died. In view of the above, therefore, it is not possible to say that Dewan Singh was dead on the date of the decision by the learned Single Judge. We, therefore, find no force in this objection.