SIRI CHAND Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this writ petition filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, petitioner Siri Chand has challenged the order dated 3.9.2001 passed by the Chief Settlement Commissioner, Rehabilitation Department, Haryana, vide which the alternative allotment of land measuring 14 kanals 10 marlas in village Sohata and 16 kanals 16 marlas in village Ugala made in his favour vide order dated 31.5.1995, by Naib Tehsildar (Sales)-cum- Managing Officer, was set aside in exercise of suo motu power under Section 24 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'); and the order dated 3.5.2002 passed by the Commissioner and Secretary to Government, Haryana, Rehabilitation Department (respondent No. 1) vide which the aforesaid order was confirmed in exercising the power of Central Government under Section 33 of the Act.

(2.) IN this case, petitioner Siri Chand claims himself to be the son of Bishan Dass, a displaced person. On 21.9.1994, he filed an application before the Naib Tehsildar(Sales)-cum-Managing Officer, Land Claims Organisation, Rehabilitation Department, Haryana, Chandigarh, for allotment of land alleging therein that his father Bishan Dass was allotted land to the extent of 2-10 standard acres in village Loharu, District Bhiwani, which was later on cancelled on the ground of non-taking of its possession. Therefore, he requested that an alternative allotment of the land should be made to him. The said application was neither signed nor verified by the petitioner nor any document whatsoever was annexed with the said application such like, earlier allotment order, cancellation order, copy of the jamabandi or copy of the verified claim. The said application was allowed by the Tehsildar (Sales) vide order dated 31.5.1995 and the petitioner was allotted land measuring 14 kanals 10 marlas in village Sohata and 16 kanals 16 marlas in village Ugala. The said order was passed without hearing the representative of the department. The copy of the order was forwarded to one Narender Kumar, who alleged to be a General Attorney of the petitioner.

(3.) COUNSEL for the petitioner submitted that there was no limitation for filing the claim for alternative allotment of the land and Rule 67-A of the Rules is not applicable in the instant case. He submitted that it was the duty of the Rehabilitation authorities to provide compensation to the displaced persons by making allotment of the land and they could not go behind the technicalities to deny compensation to such persons. Since the earlier allotment made in favour of Bishan Dass was cancelled on technical grounds of not taking possession, therefore, delay should not be made fatal and on such ground the displaced person or his legal heir should not be deprived of their rightful claim. In support of his contention, he relied upon the decision of this Court in Guran Ditta v. The Financial Commissioner (Revenue) and Secretary to Government Punjab and another, 1992(2) RRR 478 (P&H) : 1992 PLJ 603. Secondly, he submitted that the Assistant Registrar, Land Claims Organisation is the competent authority who could have passed the order of alternative allotment but since the Naib Tehsildar (Sales)-cum-Managing Officer was also given such power, therefore, he was also competent to make the alternative allotment of land to satisfy the verified claim of a displaced person. Thirdly, he submitted that the power under Section 24 of the Act could be exercised only in case of fraud and concealment of facts and the said power was illegally exercised in the instant case for setting aside the order dated 31.5.1995 vide which a valid alternative allotment was made in favour of the petitioner. He further submitted that the Chief Settlement Commissioner has illegally and arbitrarily exercised his suo motu power for setting aside a valid allotment.