KARTAR SINGH Vs. FINANCIAL COMMISSIONER PLANNING

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this judgment I dispose of Civil Writ Petition No. 3531 of 1991 and the two Civil Misc. applications. Initially the writ petition was filed by Kartar Singh and Suresh Kumar petitioners against the respondents, including contesting respondent No. 4 Gurdip Singh, under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India for the issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari/mandamus seeking directions of this Court for the quashment of the orders contained in Annexures P2 and P3 and for the issuance of directions to respondent Nos. 1 to 3 to declare the proprietary rights conferred upon respondent No. 4 as illegal, fraudulent and null and void.

(2.) BEFORE I incorporate the pleadings of the parties in brief, at the first instance I dispose of the Civil Misc. application filed by the legal representatives of Kartar Singh, petitioner No. 1, which is hereby allowed and it is ordered that the persons mentioned in Civil Misc. No. 3328 of 1994 be brought on the record in place of Kartar Singh, as the alleged cause of action of Kartar Singh is survived by his legal representatives, who are in a position to tell as to whether the proprietary rights conferred on respondent No. 4 by the respondent-authorities Nos. 1 to 3 were valid or not. Similarly Civil Misc. No. 14908 of 1996 filed by respondent No. 4 is also hereby allowed and he is permitted to prove before the Court that he was not working as a Patwari, as alleged by the petitioners at the relevant time, to rebut the allegation of the petitioners, who alleged in the writ petition that respondent No. 4 had manipulated the proprietary rights in his favour with regard to the estate of Ujagar Singh.

(3.) NOTICE of the writ petition was given to the respondents. Return was filed by respondent No. 4 who denied the allegations on merits and also took preliminary objections, such as that the petitioners had concealed most material facts from this Court and for this reason they do not deserve any relief at all, as claimed by them. According to this respondent, Ujagar Singh died on 1.6.1969 and in his life time he never made any complaint regarding his properties. The petitioners are bound by the admissions of Ujagar Singh. Smt. Khichho, sister of Ujagar Singh, filed a Civil Suit for possession of the land, previously belonging to Ujagar Singh, against respondent No. 4, on the ground that the land was owned by Ujagar Singh and she being his heir was entitled to take possession after his death and that the present respondent No. 4 got the land mutated in his name wrongly. That suit was contested by respondent No. 4 on the ground that Ujagar Singh had transferred his claim in his favour, as a result of which the land in suit was allotted in his name in lieu of the land left by Ujagar Singh in Pakistan. In the said suit issue No. 1 was to the effect : "Whether Ujagar Singh was the owner of the land in dispute ?" The suit of Smt. Khichho was dismissed by the Civil Court on 31.10.1972, holding that Ujagar Singh was not the owner of the disputed land, vide judgment Annexure R1. Ujagar Singh also made a registered Will dated 11.10.1967 in favour of the sons of respondent No. 4. Again Smt. Khichho filed another civil suit for possession of the land measuring 63 Bighas 18 Biswas, which was mutated in the names of the sons of respondent No. 4 after the death of Ujagar Singh. During the pendency of the suit, Smt. Khichho died and she was represented by Kartar Singh petitioner No. 1 and Suresh Kumar petitioner No. 2. Their suit was dismissed on 27.11.1987 and the registered Will of Ujagar Singh was held to be genuine. The petitioners have no right against the land of Ujagar Singh and it was so held vide Annexure R2, i.e., the copy of the judgment dated 27.11.1987. The petitioner then filed the appeal against the judgment and decree dated 27.11.1987, which was dismissed on 30.1.1993 and the judgment of the trial Court dated 27.11.1987 was confirmed. During the pendency of the appeal, Kartar Singh also died and his legal representatives filed a regular second appeal in the High Court which was dismissed on 22.12.1993 after contest vide Annexures R3 and R4, respectively. Special Leave Petition was also filed in the Hon'ble Supreme Court which was dismissed on 16.3.1994 vide Annexure P5. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioners on 5.3.1991 after the decision of the suit filed by Smt. Khichho against the respondents and after the decision of her another suit, but not a word has been mentioned in the writ petition of the Orders R1 and R2. These are material concealment of facts on the part of the petitioners and, therefore, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed on this short ground. Earlier also, the present writ petition was dismissed in limine on 6.3.1991. The petitioners filed a review petition after about 2 years, alleging the same ground as contained in the writ petition. The review application was allowed and the order dated 6.3.1991 was recalled and notice of motion was issued in the main writ petition. The Civil Court time and again held between the parties that the petitioners had no claim qua the land of the deceased Ujagar Singh and the findings have been affirmed right upto the Hon'ble Supreme Court and in these circumstances this Court has no writ jurisdiction to interfere with the findings of facts. The order dated 10.1.1956 is based on consent of Ujagar Singh. The proprietary rights of land falling to the share of Ujagar Singh were conferred upon respondent No. 4. Ujagar Singh remained alive upto 1.6.1969 and during his life time he never challenged the order dated 10.1.1956; so much so, Ujagar Singh executed general power of attorney duly registered in favour of respondent No. 4, meaning thereby that he had faith in him. Even Ujagar Singh executed a registered will in favour of the son of respondent No. 4 on 11.10.1967. Ujagar Singh never challenged the proprietary rights granted to respondent No. 4 in his life time. Hence the legal heirs of Ujagar Singh are bound by his admission. When the suits of the petitioners were dismissed, they resorted to file the complaint after 33 years and started alleging against the proprietary rights. All the Courts concurrently held that the proprietary rights were rightly conferred upon respondent No. 4 and it is not open for them now to challenge the same findings in the present writ petition. On merits this respondent also stated that the land was allotted in the name of Ujagar Singh and he himself filed the declaration and accordingly a consent order was passed by the Managing Officer granting proprietary rights in favour of respondent No. 4. There is nothing wrong in this procedure. The consent orders/decrees do not require any registration. No fraud has been played either upon the authorities. Ujagar Singh remained alive upto 1969 and he never challenged the consent order. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioners when they lost the butter in the Civil Court and that \too after 33 years from the granting of the proprietary rights. The complaint was never filed during the life-time of Ujagar Singh. The complaint is a mala fide one in order to harass respondent No. 4. The consent given by Ujagar Singh before the Managing Officer was neither challenged in appeal nor in revision under the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act. That order has already attained finality and could not be reopened. The order Annexure P1 was wrong when the Managing Officer wrongly recommended for the setting aside of the proprietary rights. Ujagar Singh was of the firm view that the property should either go to respondent No. 4 or to his sons, as the deceased had confidence in respondent No. 4 till his death. The Chief Settlement Commissioner had rightly held that since the dispute was between the private parties and that the interest of compensation pool was not involved, therefore, the complaint was not competent after 33 years from a consent order when it was not challenged during the life-time of Ujagar Singh and even the Civil Court had decided the matter in favour of respondent No. 4. The Chief Settlement Commissioner had exercised the jurisdiction vested in him after satisfying himself about the propriety of the order vide which the proprietary rights were ordered to be transferred in favour of respondent No. 4. The Financial Commissioner has also rightly dismissed the petition. The Chief Settlement Commissioner has been invested with the powers to satisfy himself regarding the orders passed by the lower authorities and after satisfying himself, he passed the order Annexure P2. Similarly respondent No. 3 passed the order (P3), seeing no illegality in the order Annexure P2. The findings given by the Civil Court are binding upon the Rehabilitation Authorities. Once the property goes out of the compensation pool, the authorities under the Act have no jurisdiction to probe into the matter. The jurisdiction of the Court was not barred where the dispute is between the private parties and the interest of the compensation pool is not involved. Since the petitioners had alleged that they are the original legal heirs of the deceased, hence the Civil Court could only decide who were the legal heirs of Ujagar Singh deceased. If the petitioners wanted to prove that the consent order was passed with fraud, the only proper forum was the Civil Court and not the authorities under the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act and the order of transfer was never challenged during the life-time of Ujagar Singh who survived upto 1969. The petitioners want to grab the land from the original owners. With the above averments, respondent No. 4 has prayed for the dismissal of the writ petition after relying upon various annexures as contained in Annexures R1 to R5. No separate written statement has been filed on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 to 3.