BAL KRISHAN MUKHI Vs. COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This judgment will dispose of Civil Writ Nos. 1656, 4134, 4135 and 4136 of 1971, which involve common questions of law and fact. I shall first deal with Civil Writ No. 1656 of 1971.

(2.) Briefly the case of the petitioner is that after the partition of the country, he came to India and in lieu of the agricultural land abandoned by him in Pakistan, he was allotted evacuee agricultural land in village Pipli and other villages of Tehsil Sirsa, District Hissar. In due course of time proprietary rights in respect of the aforesaid land were also conferred on him. Long after that, a reference was made by the Settlement Officer-cum-Managing Director to the Chief Settlement Commissioner to the effect that the petitioner was holding excess allotment to the extent of 1 Standard Acre and 2 Units. The reference was accepted by the Chief Settlement Commissioner and he cancelled the proprietary rights of the petitioner in respect of the aforesaid area in village Pipli by an ex parte order dated February 25, 1970 (Annexure 'A'). The ground for cancellation given by him was that the entire area measuring 5 Standard Acres and 15 Units, allotted to the petitioner in village Pipli was treated as barani at the time of allotment and subsequently it transpired that a part of the area comprised in Khasra No. 377, was in fact nehri at the relevant time. It was further held by him that the valuation of nehri land for the purpose of allotment was 10 annas and that of barani was 5 Annas. The petitioner made an application for setting aside the ex parte order, but the Chief Settlement Commissioner, after hearing the petitioner confirmed his earlier order dated February 25, 1970 on the same date (Annexure 'B'). The petitioner went up in revision under Section 33 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), but the same was rejected on February 1, 1971 (Annexure 'C'), by the Commissioner, Revenue, Haryana State, exercising the powers of the Central Government. The petitioner had challenged the orders of the respondents, dated February 25, 1970 and February 1, 1971 (Annexure 'B' and 'C' respectively). The writ petition has been contested by the respondents.

(3.) The first contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner, is that proprietary rights were conferred on the petitioner in respect of the land situated in village Pipli. The Chief Settlement Commissioner had no jurisdiction to cancel the allotment unless there was a finding given by him that the so-called excess area had been obtained by the petitioner by fraud, misrepresentation or concealment of any material fact. In support of his contention, he has referred to Section 24(2) of the Act. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the State, has vehemently argued that even if there was no fraud, misrepresentation or concealment of any material fact, the Chief Settlement Commissioner had the right under Section 24(1) of the Act to cancel the allotment.