DALIP SINGH NAIK Vs. FINANCIAL COMMISSIONER REVENUE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) After the petitioner of the country, the petitioner as orphan minor of 2 or 3 years- the parents and other members of the family having been allegedly murdered in the riots was brought by the Army from Pakistan along with his paternal grand-mother. She died in 1950 and thereafter the petitioner was admitted in Gandhi Vanita Ashram where he remanded upto 1951 and thereafter he was put into Jain School, Panchkula, where he received education at the Government expense. After matriculation he joined the Army. On 14th October, 1974 he applied to the Managing Officer, Jullundur, for allotment of land in lieu of the land abandoned in Pakistan by the deceased brother and uncle of the petitioner of whom he was the sole heir. This application was dismissed by the Managing Officer vide order dated 25th March, 1975 for the reasons: (1) that the petitioner had not filed any mutalba claim and (2) that the application for the allotment was time-barred in terms of the provisions of rule 67-A of the Punjab Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Rules, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules) - he having applied long after 31sr December, 1963 the last date by which such application could have been made in terms of the said rule. The petitioner challenged that order in appeal before the Settlement Commissioner, who vide his order dated 11th July, 1975 set aside the order dated 25th March, 1975 of the Managing Officer and remanded the case back to him for fresh decision in the light of his order. The Managing Officer vide his order dated 28th November, 1975 again dismissed the petitioner's application which again led to fresh appeal to the Settlement Commissioner who again vide order dated 12th February, 1976 allowed the appeal and this time gave a direction to the Managing officer to pass an order effecting allotment of land to the petitioner. However, before this order could be given effect to by allotting the land in compliance thereof, the department suo motu made reference to the Chief Settlement Commissioner under section 24 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954 (for short) the Act, 1978 (Annexure P.3.) allowed the reference and set aside the orders of the Settlement Commissioner dated 12th February, 1976. A revision Petitioner against this order at the instance of the petition under section 33 of the Act was dismissed by the Financial Commissioner vide order dated 20th February, 1979 (Annexure P.5). So the present petitioner at the instance of the petitioner.

(2.) It is not in dispute that the petition was an orphan minor of a tender age when with the help of the Army he crossed into India from Pakistan after the partition of India. It is also not in dispute that he is sole heir of his deceased brother and uncle in question. It is also not in dispute that on the basis of the Jamabandi entries received from Pakistan, the appellant's brother and uncle were entitled to be allotted land measuring 0.111/4 standard acres and 1.6 standard acres respectively. The question that now falls for consideration is as to whether the petitioner is to be denied the allotment of the land in question on the ground that in view of the provisions of the rule 67-A of the Rules his application was barred by limitation. Rule 67-A of the Rules is in the following terms:-

(3.) A persual of the aforesaid rule would show that it envisage submission of application for allotment in regard to unsatisfied verified claims. The expression "verified claim" has been defined in section 2(e) of the Act which is in the following terms:-