MUKHTIAR SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners are in occupation of various parcels of land as detailed in the chart Annexure P-2 in various villages of Tehsil, Zira District Ferozepore. The land forms part of surplus rural evacuee property transferred by the Central Government to the State of Punjab which is required to be dealt with in accordance with the provision of the Punjab Package Deal Properties (Disposal) Act, 1976 , (hereinafter to be referred as the Act), and the Rules framed thereunder. The case of the petitioners is that they are Rai Sikhs by caste. They had made the land cultivable by putting in hard work and investing sizable amount of money. They had been in possession of the land for more than 27 years and had been paying Chulha tax in the villages in which they were in occupation of the land. The petitioners thus, fulfilled the requisite conditions laid down in the Press notes issued by the State Government from time to time and especially, the one dated 6th October, 1971. The petitioners accordingly made applications to the Tehsildar/Naib Tehsildar (Sales), for transfer of the land in their favour. The applications were neither allowed nor rejected but were kept pending. During the pendency of their applications, a proclamation had been issued on 14th August, 1981 that the land in occupation of the petitioners was to be sold by auction. The Petitioners prayed for a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to transfer the land in their favour in terms of the Press Note and not to dispose of the same by auction.

(2.) In the written statement, reference was made to various Press Notes issued by the State Government under the Act from time to time. It was further stated that according to the Press Notes, certain conditions had been laid down and only those persons were entitled to the transfer of the land who fulfilled those conditions. With regard to the applications made by the petitioners, it was stated that the same had been rejected either for want of evidence in spite of opportunities or in default or that the conditions were not held to have been fulfilled. In the case of petitioner No. 7, it was found that he was entitled to the transfer of land and his case was being processed. It was further pointed out that the petitioners No. 1 and 2 had preferred an appeal against the order dismissing their applications for transfer of land. The other petitioners had not exhausted their remedy provided under the statute which contained provisions of two appeals and a revision.

(3.) The Petition is liable to be dismissed on the short ground that the petitioners have suppressed the material fact that their applications had been dismissed by the Tehsildar/Naib Tehsildar, (Sales), prior to the filing of the writ petition. The effect of this suppression is that if this fact had been brought out of the petition, the Court might have referred the petitioners to have their remedy provided under the statute. Instead of disclosing this material fact, the petitioners misled the Court by making a positive wrong averment to the effect that their applications for transfer of the land were kept pending by the Tehsildar/Naib Tehsildar (Sales).