HARBANS KAUR Vs. FINANCIAL COMMISSIONER, REVENUE, PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This order will dispose of five connected writ petitions No. 9787 and 10256 to 10259 of 1989 all of which involve common questions of law and facts.

(2.) An area of 70 kanals 19 marlas of evacuee agricultural land in village Kulia, Tehsil and District Ropar was allotted to 17 persons, 15 to whom are private respondents in the present writ petitions. This allotment was made on temporary basis by the Managing Officer, Rehabilitation Department, Punjab in the absence of records which were yet to be received from West Pakistan. The allottees except two of them with whom we are not concerned in the present proceedings, did not take possession of the allotted land as according to them the area was too meagre to earn a livelihood. It is common case of the parties that the private respondents (allottees) did not stay in the village and settled elsewhere. The land in dispute came to be occupied by one Inder Singh and his son who were said to be in unauthorised possession. One Prem Singh son of Chet Singh made a complaint to the Managing Officer on May 19, 1975 bringing this fact to his notice. It was also mentioned in the complaint that the unauthorised occupants were not even paying any rent (chakota) to the Government. The Managing Officer enquired into the complaint and fond that it was true. He issued notices to the private respondents (allottees) but since they were not residing in the village they cod not be served. Substituted service by publication and proclamation by beat of drum was resorted to. None of the allottees appeared before the Managing Officer who by his order dated June 15, 1977 cancelled the temporary allotment. The Managing Officer placed reliance on the reports dated May 31, 1975 and May 27, 1977 submitted by the Patwari and also on the office report dated October 2, 1976 and found that the respondents had not taken possession of the land allotted to them and that the same was, therefore, liable to be cancelled in terms of the Notification dated July 8, 1949 issued by the Custodian under Clause (f) and (ff) of sub-section (2) of Section 22 of the East Punjab Evacuees (Administration of Property) Act, 1947 prescribing the conditions on which he was authorised to grant allotment of land vested in him under the provisions of the said Act to displaced persons. Clause (6) of this notification deals with resumption and the relevant part thereof reads as under :-

(3.) As the order of the Managing Officer cancelling the allotment in favour of the State Government was ex parte, the latter filed an application for restoration of their possession on the ground that they were not heard. This application was dismissed on December 15, 1979. The respondents then filed five appeals against this order before the Settlement Commissioner, Punjab, Jalandhar who as per his order dated April 2, 1980 allowed the same. The Settlement Commissioner preceded on the assumption that the appellants before him (private respondents herein) had taken possession of the allotted land and left the village after giving the land to the tenants. For this reason, according to the Settlement Commissioner, the allotment in their favour could not be cancelled in terms of clause 6(g) of the notification referred to above. Accordingly, the allotment in favour of private respondents was restored and that in favour of the petitioner was cancelled. Feeling aggrieved against the order of the Settlement Commissioner, the petitioners preferred five revision petitions before the Chief Settlement Commissioner who dismissed the same as per his order dated April 28, 1981. The Chief Settlement Commissioner also assumed that temporary allottees had taken possession of the allotted land and thereafter had left the village. The petitioner thereafter filed five revision petitions before the Central Government under Section 33 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954 which were dismissed by the Financial Commissioner as per his order dated March 14, 1989 (Annexure P-7 with the writ petition). The Financial Commissioner while upholding the order of the Chief Settlement Commissioner observed as under :-