GOPI CHAND Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition is directed against the order of the Financial Commissioner, Revenue, and Secretary to Government, Punjab dated June 20, 1980, copy, Annexure P. 9, passed under Section 33 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954 (hereinafter called the Act).

(2.) The petitioner made the application for transfer of a portion of the property, bearing No. B-II S-5/92-A, situated in Mohalla Premgarh, Hoshiarpur, on the ground of his possession thereof. His application was rejected by the Managing officer, vide order dated December 6, 1976 copy, Annexure P.3. He filed an appeal and the case was remanded by the Settlement Commissioner, vide his order dated December 21, 1977, copy Annexure P. 4. After remand, the Tehsildar-cum-Managing Officer, Hoshiarpur, visited the spot and came to the conclusion that the petitioner was not in occupation of the property and it was in occupation of Smt. Kesari, widow of Charan Dass, since long. Accordingly he rejected the application. Aggrieved against the same, the petitioner filed an appeal, but it was rejected by Settlement Commissioner, Jullundur, vide order, dated July 10, 1978. The petitioner then filed a revision petition but to no avail. Subsequent thereto, he moved an application under section 33 of the Act, which came up for hearing before the Financial Commissioner, Revenue, and Secretary to Government, Punjab, with delegated powers of the Central Government, under section 33 of the Act. The contention of the petitioner before the Financial Commissioner was that the portion bearing No. B-III-S. 5-92A, was portion of the property already transferred to him, but the price of the left out portion was not charged by the Department and the property transferred to him as also the left out portion belonged to one Muslim evacuee and it could not be separately disposed of. He also urged that he had raised construction over the disputed area in the year 1976 and even rent from January 1, 1966 to the year 1978 had also been paid by him. On behalf of Smt. Kesari Devi, respondent No. 5, it was argued that this property was in possession of her husband since the year 1971 and that her deceased husband had been paying the rent regularly. It was also submitted that it was admitted by the petitioner himself in year 1974 that the possession was taken over by Fateh Chand son of deceased Charan Dass, the husband of Smt. Kesari Devi, respondent No. 5. Subsequently, on the basis of possession the disputed portion had rightly been transferred to her. Thus, the basic question before the Financial Commissioner was as to who was physically in possession. The learned financial Commissioner after appreciating the respective contentions of the parties and a perusal of the record concluded :

(3.) The main contention raised on behalf of the counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner was in possession of the disputed property inasmuch as he was paying the rent regularly and, therefore, the same could have been allotted to him. According to the learned counsel the possession of the respondents was wrong and illegal, if any. In support of this contention he referred to Union of India and others v. Santokh Singh and another, 1967 CurLJ 619and Smt. Jamna Bai and another v. Union of India and others, 1965 AIR(P&H) 395. According to learned counsel even Fateh Chand son of Charan Dass, the predecessor-in-interest of the respondent Kesari Devi was convicted by the Criminal Court vide order dated 27th May, 1976, copy Exhibit P. 2. Thus argued the learned counsel that such a possession if any of the respondent Kesar Devi could not be held to be legal possession so as to entitle her to the allotment.