HARI KRISHAN Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal under clause 10 of the Letters Patent from the judgment and order, dated November 10, 1965, of a learned Single Judge whereby he dismissed a petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution by the appellant, Hari Kisha.

(2.) The facts are really not a matter of controversy in this appeal. The appellant is a displaced person. He was allotted 4 standard acres and 11 standard units of land in village Ucha Gaon in 1958. The evacuee owner of the land had mortgaged it and the mortgagees had irrigated it from a well in his own land. Consequently the land in the revenue was shown as chahi ayaytan; meaning temporarily well irrigated. However, after the land bad vested in the Custodian the evacuee interest was separated under the provisions of the Evacuee Interest (Separation) Act, 1951 (Act 64 of 1951). The result was that the land went out of the possession of the mortgagee and obviously ceased to be irrigated by the well in the mortgagee's own land. The appellant claimed that the land was barani or unirrigated. The Managing Officer made a reference to the Deputy Commissioner of Gurgaon whether the land, as it was shown in the revenue records as chahi ayatan, it is to be treated as chahi, that is well-irrigated, or otherwise. He received instructions from the Deputy Commissioner that it was to be treated as well-irrigated land. On a representation by the appellant the matter was gone into by the Revenue Authorities as to the valuation of the land and when the Tehsildar (Assistant Collector) made report that it should be evaluated on the basis of it being barani (unirrigated) land, the Deputy Commissioner (Collector) agreed with him. Consequently the additional area of one standard acre and 1-1/4 standard units was allotted to the appellant in village Mewala Maharajpur on June 29, 1959. He also acquired the title deed in regard to the proprietary rights in that land on May 2. 1961.

(3.) On March 16, 1964, the Tehsildar (Sales) of Palwal again referred the case to the Chief Settlement Commissioner, Punjab, for cancellatoin of the last-mentioned additional allotment of one standard acre and 1-1/4 standard units of land to the appellant on the ground that the land initially allotted to the appellant having been classified as chahi ayaytan was, according to the instructions of the Rehabilitation Department, to be evaluated at the rate of well-irrigated land and not unirrigated land. The Chief Settlement Commissioner accepted that reference on June 4, 1964, and cancelled the additional area from the allotment of the appellant, who failed to obtain redress further in revision.