SHANGARA SINGH Vs. FINANCIAL COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition was admitted to Division Bench only because the counsel for the petitioner has cited before the Motion Bench a precedent of this Court reported as 1986 PLR 656 (The State of Haryana and others v. Smt. Savitri Devi and others), as against (Ranbir Singh v. Rattan Singh, 1982 RajdhaniLR 371), relied upon by the respondents, Otherwise, there was hardly any legal infirmity in the detailed and well reasoned quasi-judicial order passed by the learned Financial Commissioner, Revenue. It appears that with efflux of time between 1987 and 1993, the relevancy and applicability of the aforesaid two judgments outlived their utility so far as the present case is concerned, and that is why neither of the parties made any reference to the aforesaid judgments during the course of arguments; obviously because the short question involved in the case is one of the facts and does not require any legal interpretation of any statutory or other provision.

(2.) In short, the entire dispute centre around the decision of the fact, as to whether Diwan Chand had died in Pakistan before partition, that is before August 15, 1947, or died thereafter, having come over to India after partition. This is because if he had died in Pakistan, the allotment made on the claim filed by his sons on this basis, will have to be upheld and the petition has to be dismissed, and if the findings of fact is arrived to hold that he died after coming over to India, then the second allotment obtained by the sons on that basis would have to be upheld.

(3.) After thorough appraisal of the documentary evidence produced on the record and long drawn arguments at various hearing by various authorities, the matter assumed finality with the detailed and well reasoned order pased by the learned Financial Commissioner, Revenue and Rehabilitation Departments, dated 16th December, 1986. By this order, it has been found as a fact, that Diwan Chand father of respondents Des Raj and Mulkh Raj had died in Pakistan before partition of the country in 1947. Evidencing that fact, Mutalba Arazi had also been filed by the sons - respondents 2 and 3, in which it was also so recorded. Therefore, the allotment in village Kishanpura, Tehsil Rajpura, having been made on 30th October, 1949, on quasi-permanent basis, being the first allotment in point of time, had rightly been upheld by the learned Financial Commissioner. The mere fact that the present petitioner Shingara Singh later on purchased another piece of land in village Hussainpur, Tehsil Rajpura, seven years later, that is, on 10th December, 1956, was no ground to hold that the allotment in village Hussainpur was in accordance with law. In fact, the learned Financial Commissioner has rightly found as a fact that the allotment in village Hussainpur had been obtained by fraud by respondent Nos. 2 and 3 and was liable to be cancelled. On the other hand, respondent No. 4, Lt. Col. Gurdip Singh having purchased the land on 22nd April, 1970, from Dharam Singh, who in turn had purchased it from respondents Nos. 2 and 3, sons of later Diwan Chand, on 10th April, 1958, Lt. Col. Gurdip Singh was for all intents and purposes to be treated as a bona fide vendee with effect from 10th April, 1958. In view of the aforesaid factual position, the reliance placed by the learned counsel for the petitioner on the other authorities, is of no consequence, as they apply only to the cases where the land hold had died in India after partition.