MEHAL SINGH Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is seeking issuance of a writ of certiorari to quash the order passed by the Ist respondent vide Annexure P-7 and also the orders dated 28.9.1993 and 21.12.1993 passed by the 2nd respondent vide Annexure P-5 and P-6 and also the orders passed by the 4th respondent on 8.4.1953 and 28.5.1953 vide Annexures P-1 and P-2.

(2.) ACCORDING to the petitioner, his father Gujjar Singh was a displaced person and he was holding an agricultural land in village Mallowal, Tehsil Nankana Sahib in district Sheikhupura and also in village Bhadana in District Lahore. Both the said villages are now in Pakistan after the partition of the country. According to the petitioner, his father was entitled to be allotted of a extent of 82 standard acres 10-1/4 units in lieu of the land abandoned by him while migrating to India due to communal disturbances. His further case was that his father was allotted land in village Mardanheri in Kaithal District which was then in Karnal District and his father also took possession of the land on 5.10.1950 and an entry to this effect was also recorded in 'Fard Taksem Arazi Matrooka' It is the further case of the petitioner that Jagir Singh and Udham Singh sons of Gurmukh Singh made a complaint in the year 1952 and the case was re-opened and the Assistant Registrar Land Claims passed the cancellation order dated 28.5.1953 which is Annexure P-2. As per the said order, the land was allotted to the petitioner's father due to a clerical mistake in the chhant jamabandi. Thereafter the petitioner approached the 4th respondent for restoration of the land illegally cancelled but the Assistant Registrar by an order dated 16.6.1972 directed the petitioner to approach the appropriate authority against the order of cancellation. Therefore, the petitioner filed an appeal before the Additional Settlement Commissioner (Sales)-cum-Asstt. Settlement Commissioner, Haryana, Ambala, who dismissed the appeal by his order dated 12.6.1973 on the ground that the appeal is barred by time. The petitioner approached the Chief Settlement Commissioner, Haryana, after obtaining certified copies of the relevant records from Pakistan. The petitioner further took a ground that the order of cancellation was passed after the death of the original allottee-Gujjar Singh without issuing any notice to the petitioner or any legal representative of Gujjar Singh deceased and, therefore, according to the petitioner, the order of cancellation passed by the Assistant Registrar Land Claims in the year 1953 was void ab initio as it was passed against a dead person. The Chief Settlement Commissioner, Haryana, by his order dated 28.9.1993 (Annexure P-5) has not taken into account the certified copies of the revenue record produced by the petitioner doubting their authenticity. The application filed by the petitioner for the review of the order dated 28.9.1993 was also dismissed by the Chief Settlement Commissioner on 21.12.1993 vide Annexure P-6. Thereafter the petitioner filed a revision petition under Section 33 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954, but the Financial Commissioner, Haryana, dismissed the said revision petition in limine on 26.4.1994 vide Annexure P-7. Feeling aggrieved by the above orders of the revenue authorities, the petitioner filed this writ petition.

(3.) IT is also to be borne in mind that the order of cancellation has not been passed after giving an opportunity of hearing to the legal representatives of Gujjar Singh, who died prior to the cancellation of allotment by the Assistant Registrar Land Claims. Therefore, the order of cancellation is non est as it was passed against a dead person and the land which was allotted to the petitioner's father in the year 1950 should not have been cancelled, without affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner or the legal representatives of Gujjar Singh, deceased.