MANSA RAM Vs. RAJ PAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE are two revision petitions filed separately under section 15(1) of the Punjab Package Deal Properties (Disposal) Act 1976, one by 1). Mansa Ram, S/o Hoshiara Ram, 2) Sham Lal, 3) Gurdial 4) Ram Dayal all sons of Hans Raj S/o Hoshiara Ram against Sh. Raj Pal S/o Sadhu Ram and the other has been filed by Raj Pal son of Sadhu Ram (through his legal heir Pushpa Devi (widow), Satish Pal, Rajesh Kumar, Pardeep Saini (Sons) v. Swaran Kaur etc. against the orders dated 20.11.2001 passed by the Commissioner, Jalandhar Division, Jalandhar.

(2.) BRIEF facts of the case, are that Raj Pal submitted two applications for allotment of rural evacuee land on the basis of his continuous possession. The first application was 9.5.88 for 5K-19M and 2nd application was for 1K-5M. The Tehsildar (Mahal)-cum-Sales Officer, Pathankot vide his order dated 27.1.89 allotted 4K-14M of land with regard to first application and with regard to 2nd application, the Tehsildar vide his order dated 29.4.91 allotted 1K-5M land to Raj Pal, Mansa Ram etc. and Swaran Kaur etc. challenged these two orders in revision petition before the Chief Sales Commissioner, Gurdaspur in 1998 who accepted the same vide his order dated 17.5.99 and set aside the allotment order dated 27.1.89 and 29.4.91 of the Tehsildar Sales, Pathankot. Raj Pal further challenged these orders before Commissioner, Jalandhar Division, Jalandhar who, vide his single order dated 20.11.2001 accepted his one revision petition regarding 4K-14M and rejected the other petition with regard to 1K-5M. Aggrieved by these orders Mansa Ram etc. have filed MR 3/2002 and Raj Pal through his legal heirs filed M.R. 35/2002.

(3.) COUNSEL for petitioners further submitted that the affidavit attached to application dated 9.5.88 for allotment was not signed by Raj Pal hence that application could not be termed as valid application in the eyes of law and allotment on the basis of invalid application should be treated as illegal allotment.