KASHMIR SINGH Vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition by Kashmira Singh under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India against the Deputy Commissioner, Ferozepure, Tehsildar, Ferozepore and Mohinder Singh had arisen out of the following facts.

(2.) The petitioner a displaced Rai Sikh after partition of the country settled in village Barke, tehsil and district Ferozepore which adjoins the Indo Pakistan border. The lease of Muslim evacuee banjar qadim ghair mumkin, parcel of land forming khasra Nos. 1142/557, 786, 970, 830, 831, 833 min, and 836, (59 Kanals and 8 Marlas in area) has been acquired by the Central Government under provisions of the Displaced Persons (Compensation & Rehabilitation) Act. The lease of this land was put to auction somewhere in the year 1960 by the Tehsildar-cum-Managing Officer, Ferozepore and was obtained by the petitioner and he got in possession thereof through the Patwari on 1st August, 1960 and is said to have brought the same under cultivation and in the course incurred a large expense. The State of Punjab in the month of April, 1961, purchased large area of acquired evacuee land which was along the Indo-Pakistan border including the aforesaid land from the Central Government as is evident from mutation No. 454. The petitioner by operation of law is alleged to have become lessee of this land under the State Government. Some time later consolidation of land holding proceedings in the village took place as a result of which the petitioner was allotted the land in dispute in lieu of the land which he had originally obtained on lease from the Central Government. Respondents Nos. 1 and 2 by an order put respondent No. 3 in constructive possession of the land held by the petitioner on lease. This was done on 1st April, 1966. The petitioner alleges that constructive possession only was delivered over the entire area while the case of respondent No. 3 is that he was put in actual possession of 14 kanals out of the land and constructive over the remaining area. A copy of the order by which respondent Nos. 1 and 2 directed that respondent No. 3 be put in possession of the land in dispute has not been produced on record. The petitioner states that in spite of his best efforts he was not furnished with the requisite copy. He, therefore, prays that the order by which respondent Nos. 1 and 2 ousted him from the land be quashed as it was illegal, arbitrary, capricious, unjust contrary to the rules of natural justice and equity and also without jurisdiction amongst others also on the grounds as follows :-

(3.) Respondent No. 1 in his written-statement admitted that 59 kanals and 6 marlas of acquired evacuee land was leased out to the petitioner in the year 1960 by the Tehsildar, Ferozepore, and possession thereof was also delivered to him on 1st August, 1960. He however, denied that the Government at any time issued instructions to enable the lessees to obtain rights of permanent character on such lands. He conceded that the State Government purchased large area of acquired evacuee land from the Central Government which also included the land previously leased out to the petitioner. He admitted that lease of the aforesaid land purchased by the State Government was to be granted by a Committee to certain class of persons initially for 10 years. The petitioner's lease is said to have not been renewed after rabi 1964 because it was discovered that he was a minor and had obtained the land through mis-representation and fraud. It was also explained by him that actual possession of 14 kanals of land was delivered to respondent No. 3 and constructive possession over the rest of the land held by the petitioner as lessee on 1st April 1966. He pleaded that action against the petitioner was taken in accordance with the instructions and rules on the subject which he did not care to place on the record.