BEANT SINGH Vs. CHIEF SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal, under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent is directed-against the decision of learned Single Judge of this Court rejecting the petition of the appellant under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. This petition was directed against the order of the Chief Settlement Commissioner dated the 27th of May, 1960 whereby the permanent rights granted to the petitioner in certain pieces of agricultural land were cancelled.

(2.) The very narration of the facts will disclose that the impugned order of the Chief Settlement Commissioner is wholly unsustainable and that the learned Single Judge should have interfered in this case under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner, Beant Singh, was allotted land in village Pholriwala, tehsil and district Jullundur, including Khasra Nos. 608, 609 and 610. This allotment was made on the 23rd January, 1950. At the time of allotment, the land was admittedly agricultural land. On the 25th August, 1955, permanent rights were conferred on the appellant. Thereafter, consolidation operations started in the village and in lieu of Khasra Nos. 608, 609 and 610, Khasra Nos. 384 and 382/3 were allotted to Beant singh. In the 1st week of June, 1960 when the Consolidation Department was putting the right holders in possession of their respective holdings on repartition, the appellant was not given possession of khasra No. 384 and 382/3 as respondent No. 3, Tara Singh, alleged that he had obtained allotment of these Khasra Nos. as house allotment. On further enquiry, it transpired that the respondent, Tara Singh had obtained permanent rights in the same on 11th January, 1956. Beant Singh, in this situation, approached the Chief Settlement Commissioner under Section 24 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), and instead of either granting relief to Beant Singh or rejecting his petition, the Chief Settlement Commissioner proceeded to cancel the permanent rights of Beant Singh in Khasra Nos. 284 and 382/3, or in other of the Chief Settlement Commissioner was challenged by Beant Singh in a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and that petition has been rejected by the learned Single Judge. It is in this situation that the present appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent has been preferred by the appellant.

(3.) It is clear that Khasra Nos. 608, 609 and 610 were agricultural land. Even the Chief Settlement Commissioner, in the impugned order, has remarked that "Khasra Nos. 608, 609 and 610 situated in village Pholriwala tehsil and district Jullundur were allotted to the petitioner, Beant Singh as agricultural land. These Khasra Nos. are situated outside the Lal Lakir". Therefore, no basis is at all furnished for the cancellation of the allotment of these Khasra Nos. to the appellant particularly when they had been absolutely transferred to him on permanent basis and a sanad granted. It is only after consolidation that the petitioner was allotted Khasra Nos. 384 and 382/3 in lieu of Khasra Nos. 608, 609 and 610. Therefore, even if it be accepted that Khasra Nos. 384 and 382/3 had been allotted to respondent, Tara Singh, and validly transferred to him, Tara Singh's remedy lay before the Consolidation Officer or the Settlement Officer in appeal or the Director, Consolidation in revision. The Chief Settlement Commissioner could not thus intervene and insist that Khasra Nos. 384 and 382/3 should remain with respondents No. 3. In consolidation proceedings, all land belonging to the right-holders is put in a common pool and then redivided in accordance with the measure of their share in such land held before the land was put in common pool. In this revision, it is not necessary that the right holder may get the land which originally belonged to him before the land was put in the common pool. It often happens that some other land falls to the share of the right holder on repartition. All that he is entitled on repartition is land of equal value to the land which belonged to him and was put in the common pool. On this short ground alone, this petition must succeed.