BALBIR SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners are in possession of the land in dispute as tenants before the year 1947. At the time of the partition of the country in 1947, their ancestors were tenants of Nawab Mamdot who migrated to Pakistan in the year 1947. The petitioners continued to be in possession after 1947 also. It is alleged in the petition that one Bhana Singh son of Kahan Singh got the land in dispute allotted to him by the Rehabilitation authorities, but the petitioners continued to be the tenants under him also. Subsequently, the allotment in the name of the said Bhana Singh was cancelled in the year 1958-59, as he was found to be a bogus claimant. It is alleged in para 5 of the petition that the Rehabilitation authorities issued Press Note and department instructions and invited the unauthorised occupants of the land to put in purchase applications before 31st December, 1962. The petitioners, accordingly, made an application, on the basis of their old possession, on 26th December, 1961. It is further stated that the Tehsildar, Sales-Cum-Managing Officer, by a bogus and fictitious order on the false reports of the subordinate staff, without issuing any notice to the petitioners, filed the application dated 26th December, 1961, ex parte vide his order dated 20th February, 1964. This order was found to be fictitious and bogus by the Assistant Settlement Commissioner. It was also directed that a departmental enquiry be held as the Tehsildar (Sales)-Cum-Managing Officer bungled with the application of the petitioners. The auction of the land in dispute was held on 22nd December, 1966, without disposing of the purchase application of the petitioners in accordance with law. The land in dispute was auctioned in favour of respondent Nos. 3 and 4. The petitioners filed two appeals before the Assistant Commissioner with the powers of Settlement Commissioner, Punjab, Jullundur against the auction, which were allowed and the auction was cancelled by the Assistant Settlement Commissioner with powers of the Settlement Commissioner. A copy of the order is annexed with the petition as Annexure "B". In this order of the learned Assistant Settlement Commissioner with the powers of the Settlement Commissioner, he had found that the application of the petitioners for the purchase of the land on the basis of their old possession, was dismissed without summoning or without serving any notice on the petitioners and the ex parte orders were passed on erroneous and fictitious report of the Patwari and Kanungo and that the auction made in favour of respondent Nos. 3 and 4 are bad in law and contravene Clause 5 of Annexure 'A'. Dissatisfied with this order, respondent Nos. 3 and 4 filed a revision petition before the Chief Settlement Commissioner, Punjab which was accepted. The revision was allowed and the order of the Assistant Settlement Commissioner was set aside. The petitioners filed a revision petition against the orders of the Chief Settlement Commissioner, under Section 33 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954, before the Financial Commissioner, Taxation, but the same was dismissed. A copy of the order is annexed as Annexure 'D' with the petition. It is in this situation that the petitioners have filed the present petition.

(2.) The grounds taken in the petition are that the entire proceeding held and the auction conducted infringe the rights of the petitioners to purchase the land, and are based upon fraud and mis-representation by the authorities. The sale by action was subject to the approval of the Settlement Commissioner under Clause 5 of Form No. XXI-S and in the present case the sale was not confirmed by the Settlement Commissioner. Even the orders of the Financial Commissioner and the Chief Settlement Commissioner show that the Tehsildar, Sales, Ferozepur bungled with the application of the petitioners for the transfer of the land in dispute to them on the basis of their old possession, because the said application was filed and disposed of without affording them an opportunity of being heard. In para 5 of the his order, the learned Financial Commissioner Taxation, Punjab has observed as under :-

(3.) These allegations have not been controverted by respondent Nos. 1 and 2. It is not disputed that the petitioners are in possession of the land prior to the year 1947. The department has not filed any return. The petitioners were entitled under the Press Note to purchase the land in dispute. The Tehsildar, Sales, has bungled with their application. Admittedly, the application for purchase was filed in the year 1961. The petitioners happened to be the real tillers of the soil for the last so many years. The policy behind the Press Note was also to give benefit of purchasing the land only to such persons who were in possession of the land. Since their application was wrongly disposed of by the Tehsildar without notice to them, the whole proceedings are vitiated. The auction was also not confirmed by the Settlement commissioner as required under Clause of 5 of Form No. XXI-S.