SURJIT SINGH Vs. FINANCIAL COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present writ petition has been filed under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India for quashing of order dated 27.8.2007 (Annexure P-7) passed by the Financial Commissioner, order dated 4.5.2007 (Annexure P-6) passed by the Commissioner, Jalandhar Division, Jalandhar and order dated 31.5.2006 (Annexure P-5) passed by the Deputy Commissioner-cum- Chief Sales Commissioner, Nawanshahr.

(2.) BRIEFLY the facts of the case are that the petitioner was allotted 17 Kanals and 11 marlas land in village Dobhali, Tehsil Balachaur, District Nawanshahr and accordingly conveyance deed was issued on May 11, 1994. However, Mansu Ram-Respondent No. 4 filed petition under Section 10 of Punjab Package Deal Properties (Disposal) Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') for cancellation of sale of the land and conveyance deed dated 11.5.1994 on the ground that the petitioner suppressed and concealed the true and material facts with regard to his residence status and land holding and submitted a wrong affidavit. In the affidavit, it has been mentioned that he is head of the family and paying chula tax and chaukidara regularly whereas the petitioner was not major at the time of making an application and was not eligible for allotment of land as per provisions of the Act. The Deputy Commissioner-cum-Chief Sales Commissioner, Nawanshahr passed a detailed order cancelling the allotment as well as the conveyance deed made in favour of the petitioner against which the petitioner filed revision petition before the Commissioner, which was also dismissed on May 04, 2007 and the order of the Deputy Commissioner-cum-Chief Sales Commissioner was upheld. The petitioner filed a petition challenging the order of Commissioner dated May 04, 2007 before the Financial Commissioner, Punjab, which was also dismissed vide order dated 27.8.2007. Being aggrieved with the orders passed by the authorities below, the present writ petition has been filed.

(3.) WE have heard the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner and pursued the orders passed by the authorities below and are of the view that the petitioner was wrongly allotted land on the basis of false information given by him. The petitioner wrongly mentioned his age as 28 years whereas he was only 16-1/2 years old and was minor at the time of allotment i.e. 21.1.1979. The affidavit filed by him was also found false. The address mentioned therein was wrong and he was shown to be head of the family, which is also factually incorrect. The petitioner was allotted land on the basis of wrong information and facts mentioned in the application as well as in the affidavit. As far as the delay in cancelling the allotment of land is concerned, it has been made on the basis of false and fabricated documents, which cannot be allowed to sustain. It is a clear cut case of fraud and in our opinion the allotment was rightly cancelled.