NAGAR PANCHAYAT BEGOWAL Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has challenged the validity of order dated 12.5.2010 passed by respondent No.2 and has prayed for cancellation of allotment of land in dispute in favour of the private respondents made out of the land of Shamilat Deh.

(2.) In brief, the facts of the case are that Tehsildar (Sales)-cum-Managing Officer, Kapurthala, allotted land bearing Khasra No.227 min (03-0), 315/1 min (01-0) total 4 kanals situated in village Begowal, Hadbast No.10, Tehsil and District Kapurthala in favour of Laxmi Narayan son of Daulat Ram, resident of 46 Partap Road, Jalandhar in lieu of land measuring 6 standard acres situated in village Kot Butan Dera Ismial Khan, Pakistan, by way of allotment slip dated 7.12.1984. The aforesaid property was purchased by Surinder Pal Singh s/o Late S. Joginder Singh, resident of 31 Habowal Khurd, Ludhiana from the allottee, vide sale deed dated 7.2.1986. The Gram Panchayat, Begowal challenged the allotment of the evacuee land before the Chief Settlement Commissioner, Kapurthala, who vide his order dated 30.3.1989 directed the Gram Panchayat to approach the Deputy Secretary, Rehabilitation for getting the nature of the property decided. The said order was challenged by the Gram Panchayat before the Financial Commissioner, Revenue, Punjab, who vide his order dated 8.8.1995 held that "in case Rehabilitation Department comes to the conclusion that the land allotted to the respondents was evacuee land, the allottee will hold the land in dispute, otherwise the respondents should be given alternative allotment, under the rules". The allottee and the vendee filed CWP No.17129 of 1996 against the order dated 8.8.1995 which was upheld by this Court vide its order dated 16.1.1997. The report of the Deputy Commissioner, Kapurthala regarding nature of land was called by the Additional Secretary, Revenue, Punjab vide letter dated 11.6.2002, who vide his letter dated 13.8.2002 confirmed that the entire area of village Begowal was owned by the Muslims.

(3.) In view thereof, the Financial Commissioner, vide his order dated 11.2.2003, held that the allotted land was an evacuee property. The relevant paragraph of his order reads thus: -