JAGATAR SINGH Vs. CHIEF SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Jagtar Singh petitioner, a displaced person from villages Khai Bodla and Jalle-Alla, District Bahawalpur, now forming part of Pakistan on oral verification of his claim and was allotted on temporary basis evacuee land 21 standard acres 1 unit in area situate in village Sawani Rangranwali, district Hissar, on 17th March, 1956. He obtained possession thereof on 10th April, 1956. The Section Officer-cum-Managing Officer respondent No. 3 cancelled the above allotment on 10th January, 1961 (Annexure A). The petitioner's appeal against the above order before the Assistant Settlement Commissioner respondent No. 2 failed (Annexure B) and so did his revision petition before the Chief Settlement Commissioner respondent No. 1 (Annexure C). He has prayed in the present proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution for setting aside the aforesaid three orders (Annexures A to C) mainly on the grounds that respondent No. 1 did not serve on him any notice prior to the cancellation of his allotment and that in any case he was entitled to retain the land under Rule 63 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Rules, 1955, on payment of the sale price mentioned in Rule 56.

(2.) The respondents in their written statement maintained that the petitioner was served with a show cause notice before his allotment of the land was cancelled, that the allotment was made to him on oral verification of his land claim which on receipt of revenue records from Bahawalpur State proved to be wrong as no land was shown in his name therein and that Rule 63 did not apply to his case as he did not enter the land as a non-claimant. The order of the three respondents very explicitly mentioned that a show cause notice was served on the petitioner before the impugned order by respondent No. 3 was passed. This is also borne out by the recitals in the three orders. The petitioner contended before the Assistant recitals in the three orders. The petitioner contended before the Assistant Settlement Commissioner that the land was held by him jointly with his grandfather Jalla Singh son of Darbar Singh in village Jalle-Alla, Tehsil Bahawal Nagar, Bahawalpur State, but he produced no evidence in support of his contention and the revenue records received from Bahawalpur State also lent no support to his claim. He even failed to prove his alleged relationship with Jalla Singh. The Chief Settlement Commissioner in his order has specifically motioned that the petitioner before him also failed to substantiate that he held any land in Bahawalpur State or that he was in any way related to Jalla Singh. Therefore, it cannot be said that the impugned orders were passed before issuing a show cause notice to the petitioner and that he had no opportunity to substantiate his claim to retain that land in dispute. Furthermore, Rule 63 also does not entitle him to retain the land on payment of the prescribed price thereof to the Government. The Rule runs as :-

(3.) That, reading Rules 25 and 26 the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Rules together it is found that the content of each is different and there is no justification for importing into Rule 26, the obligation which perhaps exists under Rule 25, the pre-existing conditions in the two rules being different. The expression "may" used in Rule 26 cannot be taken as "must". Rule 26 does not cast any obligation on the authorities to transfer allottable property to a non-claimant in whose occupation such property may happen to be, and merely vests a power in the authority concerned to make the transfer or not according to the circumstances".