WADHAWA SINGH Vs. FINANCIAL COMMISSIONER PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This civil writ petition was filed by four petitioners, Wadhawa Singh, Jhanda Singh, Thakar Singh and Gian Singh. After notice of motion, the writ petition was dismissed on January 17, 1985, by the Motion Bench vide order which reads as under ;-

(2.) Certain land was originally allotted to Teja Singh, father of respondent No. 4 Suba Singh, in lieu of the land mortgaged by him with the Muslims in Pakistan. The land was allotted in village Longiwind, Tehsil Zira, District Ferozepur. When the allottee failed to deposit the mortgage amount, it was cancleled by the Managing Officer on December 23, 1960. Teja Singh, deceased filed an appeal against the said order and the Assistant Settlement Commissioner with powers of the Settlement Commissioner, vide order dated August, 26, 1961, remanded the case for fresh decision. No decision was taken and the petitioner applied for the redemption of the land mortgaged by his father with the Muslims in Pakistan in lieu of which an area to the extent of 5-4-3/4 standard acres was allotted to him, but was subsequently cancelled for non-payment of mortgage debt. Meanwhile, the said land was auctioned and was purchased by Thakar Singh, deceased, and Gian Singh, petitioners in December, 1961. Even the proprietary rights were given to them on February 13, 1963. Later on vide order dated September 24, 1975, the order of cancellation was set aside as the allottee Teja Singh had redeemed it by depositing Rs. 614/- in the Central Head and Rs. 1,840/- in the State Head, as the mortgage debt. After the said order of cancellation was set aside, Suba Singh, son of Teja Singh, who had died meanwhile claimed that he was entitled to the restoration of the original cancelled area to the extent of 5-4-3/4 standard acres in village Longiwind, Tehsil Zira, District Ferozepur. On October 23, 1960, this was opposed on behalf of the writ petitioners Thakar Singh and Gian Singh. The Assistant Settlement Commissioner vide order dated September 24, 1975, copy Annexure P.1, came to the conclusion, -

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that Teja Singh deceased, father of Suba Singh, respondent, applied for redemption on November 4, 1968. Meanwhile, the cancelled land had already been auctioned and was purchased by the petitioners Thakar Singh and Gian Singh in December, 1961. Not only that, even the proprietary rights were given to them on February 13, 1963. Since then, they have made improvements on the land and are in possession thereof. That being so, the view taken by the Financial Commissioner was wholly wrong and illegal whereas the view taken by the Chief Settlement Commissioner was just, proper and lawful. According to the learned counsel, the petitioners could not be allowed to suffer on account of the faults of the department. Moreover, the applicant himself was responsible for all this delay as he had approached after more than seven years of the order of cancellation for redemption and that too because meanwhile a judgment of this Court had come into existence as Shiv Dayal V. Union of India, 1964 66 PunLR 770. According to the learned counsel, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioners were entitled to retain the area which has been given to them by public auction. Moreover, Suba Singh, respondent, does not suffer in any way. He will be entitled to the equivalent area somewhere else.