PRITAM KAUR Vs. TEHSILDAR SALES ABOHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AN application has been moved by Shri Harbir Singh Aulakh, POA holder of Smt. Pritam Kaur, on 17.1.2005, wherein he has stated that Smt. Pritam Kaur, his mother, was allotted land in excess of her entitlement and subsequently the excess land in the hands of Pritam Kaur was allotted to N.C. Sippy and K.R. Sippy, who further sold it to Shri Harjit Singh, IAS, then posted as SDM Abohar and others. It has been further stated that Smt. Pritam Kaur challenged the allotment to Sippy brothers and ultimately the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India cancelled the allotment in the name of Sippy brothers and ownership of the subsequent purchasers. The Hon'ble Supreme Court also directed that under Rule 62 of the Displaced Persons Compensation & Rehabilitation) Rules, 1955 the first right to purchase the land vests in Pritam Kaur. The applicant further pleaded that although Hon'ble Supreme Court passed the order in 1996, the authorities below i.e. Managing Officer, Sales Commissioner and Chief Sales Commissioner have not given any relief to Pritam Kaur on account of interference of Shri Harjit Singh being an IAS Officer and tampering with the Revenue records without fear of contempt of Court of Supreme Court. The applicant has further stated that he has been in litigation for the past 30 years but no relief has been provided to him inspite of the orders of the Apex Court. The applicant has further stated that D.C. Ferozepur has sent the file to the Office of Financial Commissioner Revenue for instructions vide letter dated 10.1.2005. The applicant has further alleged that Shri Harjit Singh, IAS has bought the land as benami in the name of his father Hazur Singh and making full use of his position to thwart all attempts for restoring the land to the applicant.

(2.) THE Deputy Commissioner, Ferozepur vide letter No. 87/DRA, dated 10.1.2005 made a reference to the Financial Commissioner Revenue seeking advice for realloting land to Smt. Pritam Kaur. The relevant portion of the said letter is reproduced as under :-

(3.) BEFORE discussing the arguments of the parties, it would be appropriate to discuss the background of the case. Smt. Pritam Kaur, petitioner in this case, was allotted excess land to the extent of 47.3-1/4 Standard Acres in village Balluana and the same was cancelled. The said order cancelling the excess allotment in village Balluana was maintained by the Chief Sales Commissioner vide order dated 1.10.1980 passed under Section 24 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act. She challenged this order dated 1.10.1984 of Chief Sales Commissioner before Financial Commissioner Revenue under Section 33 of the Act, ibid, and the same was also dismissed by the Financial Commissioner Revenue vide order dated 3.6.1983 passed in Misc. Rehb. No. 20 of 1980-81. Thereafter Smt. Pritam Kaur assailed the aforementioned order of Financial Commissioner Revenue in Punjab and Haryana High Court by way of CWP No. 5682 of 1983 and the said petition was also ultimately dismissed in limine on 30.7.1984 by the Hon'ble High Court. The Tehsildar Fazilka was directed to retrieve the cancelled area from the possession of the allottee in due course of law.