GULZARI RAM Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In these two Civil Writ Petitions Nos. 142 and 143 of 1979, two different but similar orders of the same date, i.e., November 13, 1978, passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Hoshiarpur, cancelling the allotment of inferior evacuee land made in favour of the petitioners in the year 1963, are impugned. Learned counsel for the parties are agreed that these two petitions can be disposed of together and for purposes of this judgment only the facts stated in C.W.P. No. 142 need be noticed.

(2.) It is the undisputed position that the petitioners were put in possession of certain inferior evacuee land as allottees in the light of Government instructions, i.e. Memo No. 7841-JN(IV)-61/2688 dated August 29, 1961, on certain terms which were specified in the lease deeds alleged to have been executed in their favour by the Tehsildar concerned. This allotment has been cancelled primarily on the ground that the same had been made by the Allotment Committee and not by the Deputy Commissioner who alone was competent to make it. This order of cancellation is Annexure R-III in this petition. Learned counsel for the petitioners impugns this order Annexure R-III on the solitary ground that the Deputy Commissioner himself was not competent to cancel the allotment in question and in case he was of the opinion that there was any illegality or irregularity in this allotment he could only refer the matter to the Commissioner concerned who as per the instructions referred to above is the solitary authority to cancel the allotment. In support of this stand of his he firmly relies on a Division Bench decision of this Court in L.P.A. No. 623 of 1975 (Smt. Charan Kaur and others v. State of Punjab and others, decided on March 23, 1977,) wherein in a similar situation similar order passed by the Deputy Commissioner cancelling the allotment was set aside with the following observations :-

(3.) In the light of the above noted decision in Smt. Charan Kaur's case , I quash the impugned orders of cancellation passed by the Deputy Commissioner in both these petitions. This, however, would not debar the Deputy Commissioner from looking into the matter afresh in the light of the observations made in the above noted case which have already been reproduced above. No costs.