S KABUL SINGH Vs. NIRANJAN SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal from an order of Kapur J. , raises the question whether the learned Single Judge was justified in setting aside an order of the Deputy Custodian-General.

(2.) BHAGAT Singh respondent complained to the Rehabilitation Department that Kabul Singh, niranjan Singh and Gurbachan Singh had obtained allotments of land in excess of the allotments to which they were entitled and the Department finding the allegations to be true, withdrew an area of 37 standard acres 13 3/4 units from Kabul Singh and his companions and allotted the same to Bhagat Singh and his two brothers.

(3.) KABUL Singh was dissatisfied with the order of the Deputy Custodian and presented a revision petition to the Deputy Custodian-General. The latter came to the conclusion that although the administrative Department was justified in withdrawing some area from Kabul Singh, the area actually withdrawn was in excess to the extent of 11 standard acres 6 1/4 units. He accordingly accepted the petition and remanded the case to the Custodian for redecision in accordance with law. In the concluding portion of his order dated 3-9-1s53 the learned Deputy custodian-General' (Mr. Chhakan Lal) observed us follows: "before concluding I would like to say that Kabul Singh, Niranjan Singh and Gurbachan Singh have all cheated the Rehabilitation Department by obtaining allotments of much larger areas than were due to them. It does not appear that any action has been taken against them under Section 8 of the East Punjab Refugees (Registration of Land Claims) Act, 1948. In this case I have a shrewd suspicion that though the real state of affairs was known to Kabul singh, Niranjan Singh and Gurbachan Singh, by mutual connivance at the time of oral verification of their respective claims they combined to cheat the Rehabilitation Department by kabul Singh getting his claim verified in respect of the entire area owned by him and the other two and in addition the other two got an allotment of two-thirds area over again. The present is a fit case in which the penalty provided under Section 8 should be exacted. I therefore direct that the learned Additional Custodian shall take steps to re-examine the matter and take suitable action under the provision of the law. " in compliance with this order the Department proposed that a plot of land measuring 11 standard acres 6 1/4 units including the area in which Kabul Singh had installed a tube-well at considerable expense, should be withdrawn from Bhagat Singh and handed over to Kabul Singh. The Additional Custodian found considerable difficulty in giving effect to this proposal, for the land withdrawn from Kabul Singh had been allotted to Bhagat Singh and in view of the provisions of Rule 14 (6), the Additional Custodian had no power to cancel Bhagat Singh's allotment in respect of this area of 11 standard acres-6 1/4 units. He accordingly recorded an appropriate order on the 19-7-1954 and declined to cancel Bhagat Singh's allotment.