SADHA SINGH Vs. FINANCIAL COMMISSIONER HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Briefly the case of the petitioner is that Bakhsha Singh deceased owned land in Pakistan. He migrated to India at the time of partition of the country and was allotted 10.8 standard acres of land in village Kamalpur, Tehsil and District Kapurthala in lieu of the land left by him in Pakistan. After his death, Surta a son of Chanda Singh succeeded him. He, in 1957, moved an application to the Rehabilitation Department for cancellation of the land in village Kamalpur on the ground that the land left by Bakhsha Singh in Pakistan was of first grade whereas bulk of the land allotted to him in that village was of inferior quality. The application was allowed by the Land Claims Officer vide his order dated November 8, 1958 and he was allotted land in four villages namely Salpani Kalan, Chamu, Fatehgarh Chamun and Gogpur, Tehsil Thanesar, District Karnal, in lieu of the land in village Kamalpur. The proprietary rights with respect to the said land were conferred on Surta by the Managing Officer concerned in due course. After the conferment of the proprietary rights, Surta sold the land to the extent of 42 kanals and 2 marlas in village Chamu to Amar Singh, respondent No. 9 as per sale deed dated June 20, 1963. He (respondent No. 9) sold about four acres of land out of the land purchased by him, to the petitioner, for a sum of Rs. 12,000/- through a registered sale deed dated September 16, 1967. Surta also died and Puran Singh, respondent No. 10 succeeded him. A reference was made by the Managing Officer on the basis of which the entire allotment made to Bakhsha Singh in the aforesaid four villages in Tehsil Thanesar was cancelled by the Authorised Chief Settlement Commissioner vide his order dated April 29, 1968 (Annexure 'A').

(2.) When the petitioner came to know about it, he filed an application for setting aside the order of cancellation on the ground that no notice was issued to him before cancellation of his allotment. The Authorised Chief Settlement Commissioner set aside the ex parte order vide his order dated March 24, 1969 (Annexure B) but again set aside the allotment made to Bakhsha Singh in district Karnal by the same order. He then moved a review application which was dismissed by the Authorised Chief Settlement Commissioner on January 19, 1970 (copy Annexure C). Thereafter, an application under section 33 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation & Rehabilitation) Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) was moved by him before the Financial Commissioner, Haryana with delegated powers of Central Government (under section 33 of the Act) and the same was dismissed on January 22, 1971 as per Annexure D. The aforesaid orders have been challenged by the petitioner in this writ petition.

(3.) It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that section 24 of the Act empowers the Chief Settlement Commissioner to revise the order if it has been obtained by means of fraud, misrepresentation or concealment of any material fact. According to him, the Authorised Chief Settlement Commissioner and the Financial Commissioner did not give any finding to that effect. In the circumstances, he contends that the impugned orders are bad and liable to be quashed.