SURJIT SINGH Vs. FINANCIAL COMMISSIONER, PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE pangs of partition of India and the displacement of people from the place now in Pakistan have still not died down, if this case is any illustration. The litigative history of this case is another example of how even the property rights have not yet subsided and come to definitude. The petitioner is pitched against the second respondent -Dera Pang Garain, represented through Managing In charge. The property in dispute is situate in Village Khera, Tehsil Malout, District Muktsar. What started as a rehabilitation initiative soon after partition in 1947 has gone through several vicissitudes through litigative manoeuvres between parties. The Dera Mehma Sar was favoured an allotment purportedly in a measure of rehabilitation to a Dera in Village Laliani, Tehsil Kasur, District Labore that had to forsake its holding on account of partition and secured fresh allotment of 7 acres 12 1/2 units of land at Village Farid Khera, Tehsil Muktsar, District Faridkot, through a person by name Tarlok Singh. 7 1/2 unit was found to be originally granted in excess and still later, the whole of the property was stated to be wrongly given. The cancellation that was made for the first time in respect of whole of the property on 15.11.1965 gave place to a fresh allotment to the petitioner on 25.11.1965. The Indo -Pakistan war ended in September 1965 and began the disputes between the petitioner and the 3rd respondent in November 1965. The culmination of several tiers of litigation in the first round, which are not necessary to reproduce here, was through a disposal of the Civil Writ Petition No.1860 of 1967 by this court between the petitioner and the Dera Mehma Sar with the Chief Settlement Commissioner and Assistant Settlement Commissioner being parties as persons whose orders were subject of judicial appraisal. The court found that an allotment which was made to the petitioner in November 1965 could not have been cancelled and allotted again to the Dera without involving the petitioner to show cause against such cancellation. The petitioner was interested in contending that the original allotment in favour of Dera itself was incompetent and, therefore, a cancellation of allotment made in his favour could not be undertaken by trying to revive some rights in favour of Dera. The High Court passed its order on 03.08.1969 setting aside the cancellation of allotment made in favour of the petitioner and directed fresh consideration. This order was confirmed by a Division Bench.

(2.) THE whole focus of the rights moved on whether any Dera existed to merit consideration for allotment as a displaced person. The reliance was on some press notes and also declared by the State that only those institutions which had established themselves in Punjab by 01.02.1959 would be allowed to retain the land allotted to them. Any other allotment was liable for cancellation. The attempt of the authorities was, therefore, to unearth data of whether there existed the 2nd respondent Dera before 1959. The authorities were truly setting out a difficult task for themselves for collecting not any information that existed at the time of enquiry, but exhuming data of what had existed two decades earlier. They came by a small building made subsequent to the allotment after the partition which was claimed by the Dera Manager as proof of the existence of Dera. The authorities were not impressed. They found after collecting local evidence that no activities existed after the partition or dissemination of any charitable or religious activities. This was crucial, for, the Chief Settlement Commissioner and the Managing Officer at various levels had to satisfy themselves that there was continuity of activities of Dera which had ceased to exist at the time of partition and the displacement from the place now in Pakistan was bound to be rewarded with a grant if the continuance of activities in any part of India had been proved. There had been some factual disputes raised by the petitioner that the Dera Mehma Sar that existed in Village Laliani was managed by Mahant Lachhman Singh. He had died before the partition of the country and at the time of partition, one Trilok Singh was the Mahant of another institution situate in Village Panj Garain, Tehsil and District Faridkot. The contention was that Trilok Singh had no connection at all to Dera Mehma Sar but he obtained the allotment by false representation. It has not become possible for the authorities to even verify whether Trilok Singh had himself any direct connection to Dera Mehma Sar at Village Laliani. I will not, therefore, reopen the issue and only consider whether it is possible to secure the allotment for a Dera under the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954 (for short, the 1954 Act). It is through this Act that the respective parties laid that claim.

(3.) THE learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent would state that it was admitted at the time when the Chief Settlement Officer carried out inspection after the disposal of the writ petition in the year 1967 that Dera existed and that was itself proof of the existence of Dera to be favoured with allotment. I have already observed that it was truly difficult to find out the existence of a Dera more than two decades earlier and a mere building could not be taken as proof of existence of Dera. Religious institutions are established to evoke a sense of oneness with a higher being and preach ethical and moral codes for human conduct. They are bound to save the society of the evils of avarice that a normal person is susceptible to. Where desire for accumulation of physical assets exist, there is also a depletion of spiritual quest. From the days of Buddha, renunciation and sacrifice have always been perceived to be the hallmarks of spiritual advancement. The Dhammapada reminds us of what we shall not do: