SUCHA SINGH Vs. GURDIAL SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Letters Patent Appeal No. 224 of 1974 is directed against the judgment of a learned Single Judge of this Court in C.W.P. No. 3034 of 1969, allowing an application for the issue of writ under Article 226 of the Constitution. The appellants who were evacuees from Pakistan and who were colonists of Tehsil Samrala were entitled to be allotted first-grade land. Certain land was allotted to them. The allotment was questioned. The matter went up to the Supreme Court. The allotment was set aside by the Supreme Court. The litigation lasted for about 12 years. At the end of the period of 12 years, the appellants found themselves without any land. They petitioned to the Government and it was directed by the Under Secretary, Rehabilitation Department, that if it was possible to allot land in Feror village in accordance with the rules, the appellants might be helped. The appellants exercised their option for allotment of land in Feror village, Tehsil Samrala. One Makhan Singh who was entitled to third-grade land, being an evacuee from Sind, was allotted land in various villages but his claim was not fully satisfied. He was not a colonist of Tehsil Samrala but as land was not available in Jullundur district, his case for allotment was transferred to Tehsil Samrala in the Ludhiana district. On 30th March, 1962, he gave his option for allotment of land in the villages of (1) Machhiwara, (2) Bassi Gujran, (3) Urna, (4) Gagra, (5) Katala, (6) Kiri and (7) Sherpur in order of priority. On 6th June, 1962, he modified his option by substituting village Feror for Bassi Gujran. In May 1962, the Managing officer-cum-Tehsildar, Samrala, allotted to him six acres of land in the village of Mahadipur, Gagra and Urna and the balance was allotted in the villages for which he had not exercised any option. Makhan Singh filed an appeal to the Assistant Settlement Commissioner (exercising the powers of the Settlement Commissioner) who by his order dated 4th July, 1962, (Annexure 'D' to the writ petition), directed that Makhan Singh should be allotted land strictly in accordance with the preference shown by him. He said :-

(2.) Shri H.S. Wasu, learned counsel for the appellants, argued that the learned Judge was wrong in holding that the Managing Officer travelled beyond the scope of the orders dated 4th July, 1962 and 26th July, 1962 of the Assistant Settlement Commissioner. There appears to be force in this submission. We have already extracted the relevant portions of the two orders. The Assistant Settlement Commissioner made it quite clear by his order dated 26th July, 1962, that it was not his intention to exclud consideration of the claims of other persons who had given their option for lands in those villages. In fact, it would not have been open to him to do so. All that the Assistant Settlement Commissioner could have done was to direct the Managing Officer to consider the claims of Makhan Singh in the order of priority given by him but that could not mean that the claims of others should be ignored. The Assistant Settlement Commissioner made that perfectly clear. Shri H.S. Gujral, learned counsel for the heirs of Makhan Singh, however, argued that the Assistant Settlement Commissioner expressly confined the considerations of the claims of others to those who had already exercised their options. He emphasized the words "who have given option" occurring in the order dated 26th July, 1962, of the Assistant Settlement Commissioner and urged that these words made it clear that the consideration of the Managing Officer was to be confined to the claims of those persons who had exercised their options by the date of the order of the Assistant Settlement Commissioner. We do not agree. All that was meant was that the claims of others should not be ignored. Until a final allotment was made, the Managing Officer was under an obligation to consider the claims of those who exercised their options before he made the allotment. It would not be open to the Managing Officer to refuse to consider the claims of those who submitted their options subsequent to the order of the appellate authority. Those claimants were not bound by the order of the appellate authority and they were entitled to have their claims considered so long as they submitted their options before the final allotment was made. At this juncture, we may also refer to Annexure "U" dated 22nd February, 1964, by which the Under Secretary, Rehabilitation Department, gave a direction that the claims of the present appellants for allotment of land in Feror should also be considered. Shri H.S. Gujral, learned counsel for the respondents, argued that the question of allotment of lands in Feror village was delayed because of the obstructionist tactics of the Revenue Minister. He urged that but for the delay so caused, Makhan Singh would have been allotted the Feror lands before the appellants came on the scene, in which event the appellants would not be entitled to have their claims considered. We are not concerned with the hypothetical question whether the Feror lands would have been allotted to Makhan Singh. We are not also concerned with the delay caused by the alleged tactics of the Revenue Minister. We are concerned with the question whether the Managing Officer acted illegally in considering the claims of all those who exercised their option before the allotment was made. We cannot say that he acted illegally in considering all claims made before allotment. If there was delay occasioned by the alleged tactics of the Revenue Minister, we must also point out that the appellants also had suffered in like manner. The allotment made to them was set aside by a judgment of the Supreme Court about 11 years after the allotment. It was because their original allotment was set aside that they were forced to seek fresh allotment of lands. To deny their claims and to refuse to consider their options would have been equally unjust to them. We should add here that, on appeal by Makhan Singh, the Assistant Settlement Commissioner also held that the Managing Officer was well within his the authority to consider the claims of all persons who submitted their options whether before or after 26th July, 1962.

(3.) The learned Single Judge expressed the view that the Managing Officer was wrong in holding that Makhan Singh should not have been permitted to change his option from Bassi Gujran to Feror village when that change had already been approved by the Assistant Settlement Commissioner. It is true that at one stage the Managing officer stated that Makhan Singh could have the benefit of his change of option only after exhausting the available area in the villages for which he had opted originally. But thereafter, while considering the options of the various claimants to available lands in Feror village, the Managing Officer considered the claims of Makhan Singh also along with the appellants and expressly found that the appellants had better claims for allotment than Makhan Singh. He stated :-