ISHAR DASS Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Ishar Dass petitioner was admittedly entitled to an allotment of 26 standard acres 15-3/4 units of agricultural land in lieu of such land left behind by him in Bahawalpur State. He was allotted 13 Standard acres and 3-3/4 units in village Walipur and 2 standard acres 6-3/4 units in a neighbouring village on February 29, 1960. His remaining entitlement of 11 standard acres 5-1/4 units could not be satisfied at that time for want of availability of evacuee land in those villages. On his applying for the making up of the deficiency in his entitlement, the petitioner was allotted the balance of 11 standard acres 5-1/4 units of agricultural land in village Walipur, District Patiala, on April 30, 1960. About a year later i.e. on April 21, 1961, the Deputy Secretary to the Punjab Government in the Rehabilitation Department issued a circular letter (Annexure A) to all the Deputy Commissioners and the Land Claims Officer Jullundur desiring regularisation of allotments of superior grade land to persons who were entitled to inferior one by imposition of a graded cut detailed in that letter. The Department claims to have issued the instructions to avoid hardship to allottees who were otherwise liable to get the land to which they were not entitled cancelled.

(2.) The petitioner submitted an appeal against the imposition of the impugned cut which was dismissed by the order of the Assistant Settlement Commissioner with delegated powers of Settlement Commissioner, Punjab, dated July 5, 1962 (Annexure C) on the ground that the petitioner was not prepared to abandon the subsequently allotted land in village Walipur and get allotment in third grade village without any cut and that in the absence of this being prepared to do so the departmental instructions had to be followed. Further revision petition of the petitioner having been dismissed by the order of the Chief Settlement Commissioner, Punjab, Jullundur, (Annexure D) and the Central Government having declined toe interfere under Section 33 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation & Rehabilitation) Act,, 1954, by its letter dated June 20, 1963 (Annexure E), the petitioner has come up to this Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution for quashing the order of imposition of the cut on the short ground that no such cut could be imposed by mere administrative instructions by the Deputy Secretary to the Punjab Government who does not figure in the hierarchy of Officers under the Displaced Persons (Compensation & Rehabilitation) Act,, 1954. This question has already been directly decided by a Single Judge of this Court (Gurdev Singh, J. on October 1, 1963 Amar Nath v. Deputy Secretary to Government Punjab Rehabilitation Department Jullundur and others, 1963 AIR(P&H) 225, Civil Writ No. 186 of 1962. A similar imposition of cut under the same circular letter was truck down by the learned Judge in that case as being in excess of the authority vested in the respondents. I am bound by that judgment.

(3.) Mr. D.S. Nehra, the learned counsel for the respondents, has referred to a recent judgment of Mahajan J, dated May 15, 1967 Tara Singh v. The Chief Settlement Commissioner, Civil Writ No. 57 of 1964, and has argued that the learned Judge has held contrary to the view expressed by Gurdev Singh, J. in Amar Nath's case. I have gone through the judgment of Mahajan, J. in Tara Singh's case and do not find that the question which has arisen before me had arisen in that petition. Some area was with drawn from Tara Singh petitioner in that case on account of the original allotment having been made on mistaken data according to the schedule of additional valuation contained in Tarlok Singh's Land Resettlement Manual. The learned Judge decline to interfere in the case on the ground that no injustice had been done to the petitioners.