VIR SINGH AND ANOTHER Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a petition by Vir Singh and Smt. Gango Bai, widow of Saudagar Singh, under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution challenging the legality of the order dated 10th March, 1961 passed by the Chief Settlement Commissioner, Punjab, Jullnndur, Respondent No. 1.

(2.) ACCORDING to the Petitioners, Respondent No. 2, Mangh Singh was the cousin of Vir Singh, Petitioner No. 1, and father of Smt. Gango Bai. Petitioner No. 2. The parties originally belonged to Chak No. 109 -EB, tehsil Pakpattan, district Montgomery, where Petitioner No. 1 and Saudagar Singh, deceased husband of Petitioner No. 2, purchased land measuring 25 acres in the name of Respondent No. 2. After the partition of the country, Respondent No. 2 was allotted land measuring 38 bighas 1 biswas comprised in khasra Nos. 276 min, 285 min, 284, 283, 278, and land measuring 4 bighas 13 biswas consisting of khasra Nos. 526 min, and 529 min in village Patrewala, tehsil Fazilka, district Ferozepur. Thereafter Saudagar Singh died and he was succeeded by his widow, Petitioner No. 2. In 1950 Petitioner No. 1 filed a suit against Respondent No. 2 in the Court of the Senior Subordinate Judge, Fazilka and the same was compromised on 22nd August, 1950. As a result, a decree for possession was given regarding 19 bighas, comprised in khasra Nos. 278, 243, 526 min, 529 and 240, out of 38 bighas 7 biswas allotted to Respondent No. 2. Therein Petitioner No. 1 was given two -thirds share and Petitioner No. 2 one -third share, On 18th August, 1953 Respondent No. 2 filed a suit against the Petitioners for a declaration that the compromise -decree was a nullity, because it was obtained by undue influence, mis -representation etc. This suit was decreed on 12th February, 1954. An appeal filed against the same by the Petitioners was, however, accepted on 18th November, 1954 and they were given a decree for a declaration instead of possession regarding the 19 bighas. Against this, Respondent No. 2 filed an appeal in this Court, which was dismissed on 22nd October, 1959. During the pendency of this appeal the allotment in the entire village Patrewala was cancelled and Respondent No. 2 was allotted fresh khasra Nos. 377 to 383, 584, 865/385, 886/386, 867/387, 379, 390 and 730. According to the Petitioners, they were owners of 19 bighas out of this area. They filed an application before the Managing Officer, Fazilka, on 20th February, 1960, praying that the proprietory rights, which had been granted to Respondent No. 2, were liable to be cancelled to the extent of 19 bighas in view of the civil Court decree obtained by them, The Managing Officer made a reference to the Chief Settlement Commissioner, recommending that the permanent rights acquired by Respondent No. 2 to the extent of 16 -12(3/4) standard acres of land allotted to him in village Patrewala be set aside. The Chief Settlement Commissioner, however, refused to accept the recommendation and passed the impugned order on 10th March, 1961, by which he held that it was within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Rehabilitation Authorities to find out as to who was entitled to compensation and to what extent and the jurisdiction of the civil Court was barred in this respect - He also held that according to the quasi -permanent scheme the land had been rightly allotted in the name of Respondent No. 2, who was shown as the owner in the jamabandi papers received from Pakistan. It was further held that Respondent No. 2 had been correctly conferred permanent eights with respect to the land that had been allotted in his name. The decree of the civil Court, according to the Chief Settlement Commissioner, could not be made a ground for setting aside the permanent rights granted to Respondent No. 2. This has led to the filing of the present petition.

(3.) AFTER hearing the counsel for the parties, I am of the opinion that there is force in the contention raised by the learned Counsel for the Petitioners. No doubt the Rehabilitation Authorities are competent to allot land on the basis of jamabandi entries received from Pakistan, but when a dispute with regard to title arises in a particular case and the same is decided by the civil Courts, then the Rehabilitation Authorities are bound to give effect to the civil Court decrees, The original allotment in favour of Respondent No. 2, having been based on the revenue entries received from Pakistan, was correct ; but when a decree in favour of the Petitioners and against Respondent No. 2 for 19 bighas of land was passed by the civil Court as mentioned above, then the proper course for the Chief Settlement Commissioner was to cancel the allotment of Respondent No. 2 with respect to these 19 bighas of land and transfer the same to the Petitioners.