BALWANT KAUR Vs. CHIEF SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The facts giving rise to this writ petition by Smt. Balwant Kaur against the Chief Settlement Commissioner, Punjab, briefly stated run as follows. The petitioner a displaced person abandoned 96 acres of land in village Chak No. 278 district Tharparkar (Sind). Her claim on the basis of form VII, annexure 'A' was verified for this land and she was held entitled to the allotment of 40 Standard Acres and 2 Units if agricultural land under the provisions of the Displaced Persons (Compensation & Rehabilitation) Act,, 1954, annexure 'B'. She was alloted 39 Standard Acres 2-1/2 Units of evacuee land in village Nenowal, Tehsil and District Hoshiarpur. she applied to the Managing Officer for allotment of the remaining area of land. The Managing Officer, Jullundur, on this application observed that she had been allotted 39- 9-1/2 Standard Acres of land in village Nenowal and directed the Tahsildar concerned to allot 8-1/2 Units of land more in her favour. She again approached the Managing Officer for review of his previous order on the ground that she had been allotted 39-2-1/2 Standard Acres of evacuee land and not 39-9-1/2 Standard Acres of land as stated therein and as such she was entitled to allotment of 15-1/2 Units of land more. It appears that in the meantime copies of jamabandis of Chak No. 278 had been received from Pakistan. The Managing Officer, after going through the chhant prepared from the entries in the Jamabandis so received came to the conclusion that the petitioner was holding 96 Acres of land on harp shart basis and was therefore entitled to allotment of 32 Standard Acre and 13 Units of evacuee land in lieu thereof. He applied a cut of 25 per cent on 96 Acres of land alleged to be held by the petitioner on harp condition in Pakistan, while determining the area of evacuee land to which the petitioner was entitled under the law. The case was referred to the Chief Settlement Commissioner, respondent, for orders. After hearing the petitioner he accepted the recommendations of the Managing Officer, annexure 'C' and passed an order dated the 9th January, 1963, holding that the petitioner was entitled to the allotment of 32-13 Standard Acres and not 40-2 Standard Acres of land. The petitioner alleges that the above order was illegal, void and without jurisdiction on the ground that the respondent could not have relied on the chhant prepared from the entries in the jamabandi in preference to the from VII, annexure 'A' produced by her earlier before the Managing Officer as under the law in Sind nobody could hold land more than 16 Standard Acres on harp Shart basis. She reproduced in para No. 14 of her writ petition, instructions of the Rehabilitation Department to all concerned in regard to land held by displaced persons on zimindari shart and harp shart basis which run as follows :-

(2.) The respondent in his written statement admitted the contents of para No. 14 of the writ petition as correct. It was, however, maintained that he could rely on thechhant prepared from the entries in the jamabandi in preference to form VII produced by the petitioner in determining the area of land to which the petitioner was entitled under the law. He however, added in para No. 19 of his written statement.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the respondent having admitted contents of para No. 14 of the writ petition as correct, he could not legitimately maintain that 96 Acres of land held by the petitioner in Sind was on harp shart basis and not as complete owner inasmuch as no person could have held more than 16 Acres of land on harp shart basis in Sind. He further maintained that this point was urged by the learned counsel representing the petitioner before the respondent but for reasons which were not patent on the record, he did not care to deal with it in his contents of para No. 14 of the writ petition as correct, could not say that the petitioner held 96 Acres of land in Sind on harp shart basis because nobody could hold land more than 16 Acres on this basis. The respondent failed to consider this aspect of the matter while passing the impugned order which is based on evidence which could not have been accepted by any reasonable person in coming to the conclusion he did. The order, therefore, suffers from an infirmity which is patent on the record and has to be quashed.