KEHAR SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is a displaced person and belongs to Jat Agriculturist family. He settled on the gair mumkin evacuee land about 5/6 years before filing of the petition. He submitted his application for allotment of this land in accordance with the press note issued on 4th September, 1974 by the Punjab Government. He appeared before respondent No. 3 on 28th October, 1974, when his application was dismissed by order dated 28th October, 1974, copy of which is Annexure P/3 annexed with the petition. Its perusal shows that his application for allotment was dismissed on merits on the sole ground that he was already owner of four kanals of land, and that according to the Government instructions non-scheduled caste and Rai Sikhs having land are not entitled to have the land on the basis of their possession. No reply was filed on behalf of the respondent Nos. 1 to 3. Separate reply, however, has been filed on behalf of respondent No. 6.

(2.) According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner had sold the land measuring four kanals which he owned at the time of filing of the application for allotment and that even if the petitioner was owner of four kanals of land, he was entitled to be allotted land upto 10 ordinary acres less four kanals in accordance with the press note Annexure P/1. According to the learned State counsel and the counsel for respondent No. 6, the petition is liable to be dismissed on the technical ground that though his application was dismissed by the authority concerned by his order, copy of which is Annexure P/3, the petitioner did not avail of the alternative remedy of appeal provided under the Rules relating to the sale of surplus rural properties as enforced in 1962. According to the Division Bench judgment of this Court in Bishan Singh and others v. Chief Settlement Commissioner and others, 1973 PunLJ 183, these rules have a statutory character and the parties are entitled to avail of the rights conferred under these Rules and have also to avail of the remedy of appeal and revision provided therein.

(3.) On merits it has been contended that irrespective of the area in possession of the unauthorised occupant any person who is not a scheduled caste or a member of Rai Sikh community cannot get benefit as landless agriculturist if he owns any area howsoever small it may be. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners this interpretation is not warranted by the language of the press note, copy of which is Annexure P/1. Emphatical reliance is made on the following operative part :-