BASHESHAR NATH Vs. S.P. JAIN AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BASHESHAR Nath in this writ petition against S.P. Jain. Deputy Secretary (Rehabilition) exercising the powers of the Chief Settlement Commissioner, Punjab, and six others has prayed for quashing of an order passed by respondent No. I on 27th July, i96a, annexure 'I' and for directing him to allot the property in dispute in terms of the offer made by the Central Government previously in his favour. A few facts as alleged by him in support of his prayer may briefly be noticed He on migration from Pakistan in 1947 was allotted 22c Standard Acres of agricultural land in village Alarmgarh, Balunna etc. Tehsil Fazllka, district Ferozepore. In addition he was entitled to allotment of a residential house along with plots, cattle sheds and houses for his tenants. Since there were no such accommodation available in village Alamgarh he with the previous sanction of the Director General Rehabilitation ), Punjab, dated the 29th March, 1950, annexure 'A' was allotted house comprising three portions Nos. 160, 161 and 162 situate in Sukhera Basti Abohar by the Managing Officer on 27th December 1956 He spent Rs. l0,000/ - to improve this building. The Chief Settlement Commissioner, Shri B.S. Grewal by his order dated the 10th May 1953, cancelled the above allotment in favour of the petitioner and directed that the fresh allotment of houses in Sukhera Basti Abohar be made in accordance with rules 44 and 57 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Rules, hereinafter referred to as the Rules, copy annexure 'B'. The petitioner against this order filed a petition under section 33 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, hereinafter referred to as the Act, which was heard by Shri L.J. Johnson, Joint Secretary (Rehabilitation) and dismissed with some modification on 21st November, 1958, annexure 'C', In pursuance of his order the value of the house was fixed at Rs. 65,799/ -. The petitioner did not accept this evaluation as correct and so filed a revision petition before the Chief Settlement Commissioner, Jullundur , who dismissed it on the short ground that, he petitioner had no locus. standi to challenge the evaluation. The petitioner's second revision petition under section 33 of the Act against the aforesaid order was dismissed in liminie by the Central Government on 7th September, 1960. Thereupon the petitioner filed Civil Writ No. 1769 of 1960 Basheshar Nath v. The Central Government etc, where in the Central Government and the Chief Settlement Commissioner, Jullundur in their joint written statement give the following undertaking to him:

(2.) RESPONDENTS Nos. 1, 2 and 7 in their written statement pleaded that houses 160, 161 and 162 had been allotted to respondents Nos. 3 to 6 in the allotment register but no formal allotment orders had been issued and that the copies of the entries in the allotment register, however, were supplied to the petitioner which he has reproduced in the writ petition. They did not dispute the correctness of the contents of paragraph No. 13 of the writ petition which indicated that respondent No. 1 gave an undertaking to transfer the house in favour of the petitioner on certain terras They also admitted that writ petition No. 1444 of 1961 was dismissed as withdrawn on 24th October, 1963, but denied their knowledge about the fact, as alleged by the petitioner that it was withdrawn on account of the undertaking given by the Central Government and respondent No. 1. They further explained that when the assurance referred to above was given to the petitioner, the houses had already been allotted to respondents Nos. 3 to 6 an implementation of the dilutions given by Shri B.S. Grewal in his order dated the 10th May, 1988, and since these respondents were not parties to the assurance, hence it could not be implemented. They also added that the allotment orders in favour of respondents Nos. 3 to 6 were assailed by the petitioner in his writ petition No 1444 of 1961 which was dismissed as withdrawn and as such he could not attack the same in the present proceedings.

(3.) In my opinion the allotment of houses 160 to 162 in favour of respondents. Nos. 3 to 6 was not valid in law. It is common ground that village Sukhera Basti Abohar was a rural area from 1947 up to 6th February, 1981, when for the first time it was included within the limits of Abohar Municipal Committee, district Ferozepore. After Sukhera Basti has been included in the limits of Abohar Municipality the houses situate therein had to be treated as urban area as defined in rule 2(h) of the rules and as such could be disposed of as urban property and indeed could not have been allotted to respondents Nos. 3 to 6 as appendages to their land allotment. In this connection reference may be made to my decision in Civil Writ No. 1509 of 1961 -Mohri Ram v. The Deputy Secretary etc. C.W. 1509 of 1961 decided on 15th February, 1968.