ARJAN LAL Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution filed by Arjan Lal, challenging the legality of the order dated 11th of November, 1963, passed by the Chief Settlement Commissioner, Punjab, Jullundur, respondent No. 2.

(2.) THE petitioner was a displaced person from West Pakistan and on his migration to India, he was allotted 51 Standard Acres and 2 -3/4 Units of land in village Mohna, district Gurgaon, in lieu of the land abandoned by him in Pakistan. A part of this area was under the occupancy tenants and soma of it was restored to the allottees who had preferential rights over the petitioner. The petitioner was, therefore, given alternative allotment to the extent of 3 Standard Acres and 3/4 Units in villages Mevla Maharajpur, Baselwa and Tajupur. Subsequently, the allotment in villages Ba(sic)elwa and Tajupur was also cancelled and for the area in these two villages, he was allotted land in villages Mevla Maharajpur, Sarohi and Chhansa. According to the return of the State, this last allotment was obtained by the petitioner in collusion with the field staff. Later on, the petitioner was given permanent rights in respect of the area allotted to him, in the above -mentioned three villages, as an alternative measure According to the petitioner, the mutation with respect to the said land was also then sanctioned in his favour and a permanent Sanad given to him Out of the land in village Sarohi, according to the petitioner, he had sold 21 Kanals 2 Marias in favour of Qamar -ud -din, respondent No. 4 and the rest to Asrupa, Jummekhan and Isab. On 1st of October, 1963, the Tehsildar Sales -cum -Managing Officer, Palwal, respondent No. 3, made a reference to the Chief Settlement Commissioner, Jullundur, respondent No. 2, for setting aside the alternative allotment made in favour of the petitioner in the above -mentioned three villages on the basis of certain departmental instructions, according to which the petitioner, who was a land allottee of village Mohna, should have been given alternative allotment in that very village, as sufficient area was available for that purpose there. According to the petitioner, the Managing Officer had wrongly stated that the land at village Mohna was still available for allotment. He also directed the petitioner to appear before the Chief Settlement Commissioner on 21st October, 1963. According to the petitioner, he was seriously ill on 21st October, 1963 and he, therefore, sent a telegram to respondent No. 2 for the adjournment of the case. He also sent an application for the said purpose, alongwith a medical certificate. He requested respondent No. 2 that the next date to which the case might be adjourned, be communicated to him. On 21st October 1963, respondent No. 2 adjourned the proceedings to 11th November, 1963. On that date, since the petitioner did not appear before respondent No. 2, ex -parte proceedings were taken against him and the impugned order was passed. The reference made by the Managing Officer was accepted and the permanent rights acquired by the petitioner, with respect to 3 Standard Acres and 3/4 Units allotted in his name in the said three villages were set aside. Against this order, an application under section 33 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954 was made to the Central Government, but the same was dismissed on 8th of April 1964. That led to the filing of the present writ petition on 29th May, 1964

(3.) MOREOVER , acceding to rule 105 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Rules, 1955, the procedure laid down in Order XLI of the Code of Civil Procedure applies to the hearing of appeals and revisions under the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act 1954. Under Order XLI, rule 12, Code of Civil Procedure, the appellate court, unless it dismisses the appeal without hearing the respondent under Order XLI rule II, Civil Procedure Code, has to fix a day for the hearing of the appeal and a notice of the date has to be given to the respondent so that he can appear and answer the appeal on that day. In the instant case, the Chief Settlement Commissioner was accepting the reference made by the Managing Officer against the petitioner and it was, therefore, necessary for him to issue notice to the petitioner of the adjourned date of hearing, so that he could come on that date and represent his case before the said officer.