GURDIAL KAUR Vs. COMMISSIONER, PATIALA DIVISION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition dated 24.5.1996 is against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals), Patiala Division, Patiala dated 21.8.1995 under Section 15 of the Punjab Package Deal Properties (Disposal) Act, 1976 whereby he has upset the order of the Chief Sales Commissioner (Deputy Commissioner), Rupnagar dated 16.1.1990. Arguments were heard on 30.9.1997 and the order was reserved for announcement for 14.10.1997. On 14.10.1997 the order was not still ready for announcement and the case was adjourned to 21.10.1997 for announcement of order.

(2.) THE facts as brought out on record are that on 2.1.1974, Tehsildar (Sales), Hoshiarpur allotted land measuring 53 Kanals 8 Marlas each in village Mauzizdinpur to three war widows namely Gurdial Kaur wd/o Mewa Singh, Pritam Kaur wd/o Swaran Singh and Pritam Kaur wd/o Kabul Singh. Satish Kumar and Manohar Lal the present respondents No. 4 and 5 filed an appeal before the SDO(Civil)-cum-Settlement Commissioner, Rupnagar against this allotment, who confirmed the allotment and dismissed the appeal vide order dated 17.5.1985. Thereafter they approached the Chief Sales Commissioner who remanded the matter to the Sales Commissioner on 28.11.1985. The Sales Commissioner again heard both the parties and vide his order dated 19.11.1986 again confirmed the allotment and dismissed the appeal of the present respondents and concluded that there was no doubt that the land in dispute was in possession of the appellants since 1981, but it could not be allotted to them as they did not apply for its allotment within the stipulated period allowed by the Press Notification. Feeling aggrieved by this order, the present respondents No. 4 and 5 went in appeal before the Chief Sales Commissioner who also dismissed their claim vide his order dated 16.1.1990. Thereafter, Commissioner, Patiala Division, Patiala set aside the decision of the three lower authorities and accepted the claim of Satish Kumar and Manohar Lal on 21.8.1995.

(3.) IN the arguments before me the learned Counsel for the respondents repeated the grounds taken in the revision petition before the Commissioner viz. that land has been in their possession since 1981 and that the possession of the Government land with the occupant is the main consideration while making allotment and therefore the land should have been alloted to them. The respondents were paying the rent of the land in dispute to the Government regularly and were living there. He also stated that the petitioners were not eligible for allotment as they had remarried and had children from their new husbands.