DOABA NIRMAL MANDAL Vs. FINANCIAL COMMISSIONER REVENUE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The facts which need be noticed are that a property had been described as evacuee urban area comprised in khola no.161/359, khasra no. 7//26,measuring 24 kanals 9 marlas situated in Village Attalgarh, Mukerian. On a part thereof i.e. 7 kanals 10 marlas a dera had been constructed by Sant Hari Singh, also known as "Loh Langar Gurudwara Sant Baba Hari Singh". On the remaining land a sarovar (holy tank) had been constructed. This entire area was under the management of Sant Hari Singh during his lifetime for many years as is evident from the description made in the jamabandi for the year 1971-72 whereby the ownership has been described that of Central Government and under the column of cultivation it has been described as " for public benefit in possession of Sant Baba Hari Singh Chela Baba Jawala Singh Chela Sant Aya Singh", copy Annexure P-2. It has been averred that after the death of Sant Hari Singh, petitioner no.2 was appointed as Manager and Mohatmim of the Dera Ramsar Sarowar, being the Cheli of Sant Hari Singh. She was declared and recognised being in possession of the dera vide judgment and decree dated September 22,1979 passed by the Civil court in civil suit no. 259 of 1977. Respondent no.2 i.e. Pritam Singh was a party to the suit as defendant no.5.

(2.) Copy of the judgment has been appended as Annexure P3. It may be noticed that name of Pritam Singh had been deleted vide order dated February 28,1994 passed in CM No. 1284 of 1993 and Sant Baba Hansa Singh through General Power of Attorney of Sh.Karnail Singh was impleaded as respondent no.2. Likewise petitioner no.2 Smt.Parkash Kaur had also died and Bibi Narinder Kaur cheli of Smt.Parkash Kaur had been impleaded as petitioner no.2 vide order dated 28.2.1994 passed in Pritam Singh had earlier filed civil litigation for claiming himself to be in possession of the Gurudwara and the tank etc. but did not succeed as is evident from the order dated January 9,1981 passed by the Tehsildar vide which the claim of respondent no.2 stood rejected. Petitioner no.2, being in actual physical possession of the dera as well as Gurudwara etc., submitted an application dated September 27,1976 to the Deputy Secretary, Rehabilitation Department, Punjab for transferring the evacuee property measuring 24 kanals 9 marlas in the name of the institution on negotiation basis. Copy thereof has been appended as Annexure P5. Since the application had been filed in her name, she had been advised that the application be filed in the name of parent body "M/s Doaba Nirmal Mandal (Regd.), H.O. Village Allawalpur, Tehsil and District Jalandhar". Pursuant thereto, petitioner no.1 passed a resolution dated October 20,1977 authorising its General Secretary for submitting the application accordingly. The Chief Settlement Commissioner, after necessary enquiry, agreed to transfer an area of 2 kanals 2 marlas alongwith twenty standing trees, for a sum of Rs.2315/-. Pursuant thereto, a conveyance deed was executed on August 2,1979 and was subsequently registered in favour of petitioner no.1. The deed was signed by petitioner no.2 as vendee. However, another application dated June 9,1989 had been submitted for seeking the transfer of balance of the area on negotiation basis. Copy of the application has been appended as Annexure P-8. The matter was enquired into by the concerned quarters about the genuineness of the demand and pursuant thereto agreed to transfer the remaining area of 22 kanals 7 marlas alongwith standing trees for a sum of Rs.17,651/- i.e. Rs.14,593/- as price of land measuring 22 kanals 7 marlas and Rs.3058/- as price of the trees. This amount was duly deposited and a conveyance deed dated March 9,1981 was duly executed in favour of petitioner no.1. The deed was registered on June 8,1981, translation of which has been appended as Annexure P-9. Respondent no.2 questioned the transfer of an area measuring 2 kanals 2 marlas in the first instance by way of an appeal before the Commissioner Jalandhar Division, Jalandhar, which was dismissed vide order dated October 22,1980 by categorically holding that the property in question being evacuee property and not a package deal, he had no jurisdiction to entertain and decide any such appeal. This order was not challenged any further by respondent no.2. The aforesaid respondent filed an application dated November 17,1980 under Section 33 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act,1954. As regards the transfer of the balance of the area measuring 22 kanals 7 marlas, no mention was made. It may be noticed that the transfer in regard to area measuring 22 kanals 7 marlas took place much after the filing of the aforesaid application i.e. June 8,1981. The conveyance deed was registered which was executed on March 9,1981.

(3.) It may be noticed that the challenge was made only to the transfer of land measuring 2 kanals 2 marlas, as is evident from the prayer made in the petition filed under Section 33 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954. It may be noticed that respondent no.2 had earlier challenged the transfer of the land measuring 2 kanals 2 marlas by way of a petition under Section 15 of the Punjab Package Deal Properties (Disposal) Act, 1976 read with Section 33 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act,1954, which was dismissed by an order dated July 19,1979 on the ground that the land in dispute being a "Package Deal Property", petition under Section 15 of the Punjab Act no.21 of 1976 was not competent before him. In view of the amendment made in the said Act in 1979, the powers of the State Government had been delegated to the Commissioners of the Divisions. Resultantly, the petition was filed before the learned Commissioner, which was dismissed vide order dated October 22,1980 being not maintainable on the ground that the land in dispute was not "Package Deal Property" but having been acquired as urban evacuee agricultural land, it was subject to governance of the provisions of Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act,1954. Thus, the petition was filed under Section 33 of the aforesaid Act. Learned Financial Commissioner, exercising the powers under the aforestated provisions of the Act, permitted the counsel for the respondent no.2 (the petitioner in the said petition) to address arguments relating to the land measuring 22 kanals 7 marlas as well, even though the relief in regard thereto had not been claimed nor any fact had been averred in the petition. It has been opined that the land in dispute had been in occupation of Sant Hari Singh and respondent no.2 (Smt.Parkash Kaur) who had posed herself to be cheli of the deceased Sant had secured its transfer. It has also been averred that no effort had been made by the Rehabilitation Department to verify the genuineness of the demand made by Smt.Parkash Kaur. The financial position of the institution was also not verified through the district authorities. Respondent no.2 ( petitioner in the petition before the Financial Commissioner) had claimed that the fact of its possession had been brought to the notice of the authorities in 1978 and that the said fact is also corroborative from the revenue record, however, a part of it had been occupied by Smt.Parkash Kaur unauthorisedly. This fact should have been verified vis a vis antecedents of "the dera" before making an offer for the sale of the land by negotiation. It has been further observed that market price of the land had also not been properly evaluated. It has been held that the benefit of concession given to the so called religious institution, has in fact gone to an unauthorised person. He has also noticed that the General Secretary of the Dera has executed a registered sale deed in respect of the land in dispute, in favour of Smt.Parkash Kaur on June 8,1981 for Rs.17000/- only, when the land in question was negotiated by the dera for a consideration of Rs.20,001/-. Thus, it is a clear case of under-valuing the sale deed by virtue of which the loss to the State exchequer has been caused. Since the land in question had been offered for a religious institution for religious purposes, its General Secretary had no authority to sell the same to respondent no.2 (Smt. Parkash Kaur), an embargo should have been put that the benefit of concession given to the religious and charitable institution could not and would not be misutilised by way of offering the same to another person and that in that eventuality the sale would stand annulled. Thus, a finding has been returned that the concession granted by the government had been misutilised. Resultantly, all orders offering and transferring the land in favour of the religious institution have been set aside. It has been further directed that immediate steps should be taken to retrieve the land from Smt.Parkash Kaur respondent no.2 in the said petition. Further, action should be initiated against the revenue officer who had ordered registration of the sale deed dated June 8,1981. This order dated June 22,1983 has been made the subject matter of challenge in the present petition.