CHANAN SINGH Vs. CHIEF SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER, PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a petition filed under Section 33 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation & Rehabilitation) Act, 1954 against the order dated 24.6.1991 of the Chief Settlement Commissioner, Punjab, Chandigarh.

(2.) Brief facts of this case are that Chanan Singh, the present petitioner, abandoned land in Chak No. 88/GB, Tehsil and District Lyallpur and in village Roora, Tehsil Shakargarh, District Sialkot now in Pakistan. In lieu of the land abandoned in Chank No. 88/GB, he was entitled to allotment of land measuring 18-15-1/2 S.As but was allotted 19-9-1/2 S.As. in village Sarja Chak/90 Tehsil Gurdaspur. So he is holding excess allotment to the tune of 0-9 1/4 S.As in this village. However, no land was allotted against the land left in village Roora, Tehsil Shakargarh. The present petitioner filed mutalba claim in respect of this land to the Managing Officer and in his application it was mentioned that he has made numerous applications for the purpose before 13.12.1963. The application, however, was rejected on 22.12.1979. The appeal against the order was also dismissed. The Chief Settlement Commissioner, Punjab, accepted the revision petition of the petitioner with the observation that though nothing had been produced by the respondent (now petitioner) to show that he had ever preferred any application before 31.12.1963 for making up the deficiency yet another opportunity is given to substantiate his claim. The case was, therefore, remanded to M.D., who on remand allowed additional area measuring 2-11-1/2 S.As. in favour of the petitioner. Against that allotment a suo moto reference was made by the Rehabilitation Department in the Court of Chief Settlement Commissioner, Punjab, Chandigarh. After hearing the counsel for the parties the ld.C.S.C. accepted the reference and set aside the orders of lower courts by his order dated 6.9.1991 against which the present revision petition has been filed.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that Rule 67-A of the D.P. Rules, 1955 is not applicable in instant case as the petitioner had applied for the additional allotment on 4.2.1954 and 22.1961. The learned counsel further submitted that the petitioner had filed mutalba claim in respect of two villages i.e. Chak No. 88/GB, Tehsil and District, Lyallpur and, village Roora, Tehsil Shakargarh, District Sialkot. The land against the area abandoned in Pakistan in Chak No. 88/68 was allotted but no land was allotted against the land held in Village Roora in Pakistan. According to learned counsel the jamabandi received from Pakistan clearly shows that the land had been there in the name of Charun alias Chanan Singh son I of Surain Singh resident of village Roora. But We department failed to allot land against this. The learned counsel further submitted that why petitioner should suffer for the mistake of the Rehabilitation Department and this mistake can be rectified under Section: 25(2) of the D.P. Act, 1954 under which deficiency, in the allotment can be make good. The learned counsel 4, cited 1976-PLJ-197, 1978-PLJ-162 and 1988-PLJ- 575. Concluding his arguments the learned counsel submitted that the petitioner had filed mutalba claim in respect of land received in his name in the jamabandi of the village Roora and none else and the Tehsildar had rightly allotted the land on remand of the case after proper verification. So he prayed for the acceptance of the petition because the petitioner is also known in the village as Charnu alias Chanan Singh.