KRISHAN LAL Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The private respondents, Bhai Balraj and others, had abandoned urban agricultural land in Pakistan for which they filed a claim and the same was duly verified. In accordance with the verification, they were given on lease land measuring 19 bighas 14 biswas out of Khasra No. 917, which had a total area of 21 bighas 17 biswas in the Urban limits of Jagadhri, District Ambala and the remaining area out of this Khasra Number (23 bighas 3 biswas) was leased out to one Smt. Brahm Ishwari Devi. The Rehabilitation Department took a policy decision in 1957 for the transfer of urban agricultural land to the lessees-sub-lessees. Gobind Ram, deceased now represented by his legal representatives, the present appellants, claimed the transfer of the land as a sub-lessee under Bhai Balraj and others. The Settlement Officer, vide his order dated October 29, 1968, held that Gobind Ram was not a sub-lessee on the land and Bhai Balraj and others were entitled to the transfer of 18 bighas 19 biswas (after excluding the Ghair Mumkin portion) which formed the residential area on payment of Rs. 14,250/- at the rate of Rs. 750/- per bigha. Gobind Ram feeling aggrieved by the order of the Settlement Officer, filed an appeal which was duly accepted by the Settlement Commissioner by his order dated November 12, 1969, and a direction was issued that land measuring 19 bighas 14 biswas be transferred to him as a sub-lessee as having a superior right over the lessees. Bhai Balraj and others then preferred a revision petition against the order of the Settlement Commissioner, which was allowed by the Chief Settlement Commissioner, vide order dated June 30, 1977, Annexure P-12 to the petition on two grounds firstly, that Gobind Ram was not proved to be a sub-lessee and secondly that the land could not be transferred inasmuch as its value exceeded Rs. 15,000/-. Gobind Ram thereafter assailed the order Annexure P-12, in a petition under Section 33 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, (hereinafter called 'the Act') which too, was dismissed in limine vide order dated August 16, 1977 Annexure P-13 to the petition. Gobind Ram thereafter, filed Civil Writ Petition No. 2604 of 1977 challenging the orders Annexures P-12 and P-13. Bhai Balraj and others also assailed the order of the Settlement Commissioner, dated November 12, 1979 Annexure P-11 to the petition, the order of the Chief Settlement Commissioner, dated June 30, 1977 Annexure P-13 and the order dated January 10, 1978, dismissing their petition under Section 33 of the Act, in Civil Writ Petition No. 1538 of 1978. Both the afore-mentioned writ petitions were dismissed vide judgment dated March 8, 1984 but Gobind Ram alone, has come up in the present Letters Patent Appeal. The learned single Judge found that the evidence on record showed that Gobind Ram was a sub-lessee but he went on to hold that as the value of the land in dispute was more than Rs. 15,000/-, the allotment was not possible in view of the provisions of Rules 34-C and E of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Rules, 1955 (hereinafter called 'the Rules'), as the entire area of 21 bighas 17 biswas was covered by one khasra number and the price was to be taken at Rs. 750/- per bigha on that area.

(2.) Mr. J.R. Mittal, learned counsel for the appellants has argued that the finding recorded by the learned single Judge that Gobind Ram was a sub-lessee has not been challenged by the private respondents and as such that matter should be affirmed by this Court. He has also urged that the finding of the learned single Judge that the land measuring 21 bighas 17 biswas comprised of only one khasra number and as such, had a price in excess of Rs. 15,000/-, was erroneous facts as it had already been held by various authorities under the Act and duly affirmed by this court that khasra number, 917 had been divided prior to its allotment and as such, the judgment of the learned single Judge, to this effect, could not be sustained. For the second assertion, Mr. Mittal, has drawn our attention to Annexures P-6 to P-9, appended with the writ petition.

(3.) The decision of this case would hinge on the applicability of rules 34-C and 34-E of the Rules. These rules are quoted below :-