DARBARA SINGH Vs. CHIEF SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER ETC

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution has been filed by Darbara Singh and five others, who are all heirs of Sawal Singh deceased, and is directed against the orders dated 26th November 1962 and 18th December 1963 passed by the Deputy Custodian General and the Chief Settlement Commissioner, respectively.

(2.) The land in dispute is situate in village Nizam Pur, District Amritsar. It was given to Sawal Singh deceased on temporary allotment in 1947-48 in lieu of the land left by him in West Pakistan. This temporary allotment was made quasi-permanent on 23rd January, 1950. Subsequently, permanent rights in respect thereof were also conferred on 28th November 1955. It appears that this land had vested in the Custodian under the provisions of Section 8 of the Administration of Evacuee Property Act, 1950. Sodagar Mal respondent No. 2, had filed a revision against the automatic vesting of this land in the Custodian on the ground that the same was attached in Khankah Bale Shah as muafi since 1865 and that muafi had been entered in the name of the shrine through Rukin Din its Manager, since 1913. According to respondent No. 2, the property had been wrongly taken over as evacuee property, because none of the evacuees had any title to the same. Thereafter, a report was called from the Land Claims Officer in order to find out the exact status of this land. After going through that report and the revenue records produced by respondent No. 2, the Deputy Custodian General came to the conclusion that the land was shamilat deh, while Rukin Din and others were cultivating it as tenants and the income derived therefrom was used for the upkeep and maintenance of the shrine. The muafi was also entered in the name of the shrine through Rukin, its Manager. The possession of Rukin Din was, according to the Deputy Custodian General, as a Manager and he had no right or title to the land. Since the shrine was still in existence, the land in dispute could not be taken over as evacuee property. If that was done and the land was allotted to displaced persons, the real purpose for which the muafi was granted in favour of the shrine would be frustrated. On these findings, the learned Deputy Custodian General held that the evacuee had no right or title in the land in dispute. He, consequently accepted the revision vide the impugned order dated 26th November, 1962, held the land to be non-evacuee and released the same. On the basis of this order, a reference was made by Mr. J.N. Razdan, Assistant Custodian, on 11th February 1963 and the Chief Settlement Commissioner came to the conclusion that the allotment of this land was erroneous and, as such, the permanent rights conferred regarding the same were liable to be set aside. Consequently, he accepted the reference, set aside the permanent rights conferred on Sawal Singh in this land. He, however, directed that Sawal Singh should be given an alternative allotment in lieu of this land according to the rules. This necessitated the filing of the present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution.

(3.) It is common ground that if the order of the Deputy Custodian General was bad in law, then the subsequent order of the Chief Settlement Commissioner would also have to be quashed, because the same was based on the former order. The only point urged by the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the order of the Deputy Custodian General was made behind their back and since permanent rights had already been conferred on them and possession of the land in dispute was also with them for the last 14/15 years, therefore, on the principles of natural justice, they should have been given a notice and properly heard before some decision was taken regarding the revision petition of respondent No. 2.