S DIDAR SINGH Vs. CHIEF SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Narain Singh, father of petitioner Didar Singh, owned some land in district Multan now in Pakistan. After partition of the country, he migrated to India and in lieu of the land left by him, he was allotted land in village Dialpur, Tehsil Patti, District Amritsar. Narain Singh is alleged to have died in 1957. He was survived by five sons, namely, Chanchal Singh, Angrez Singh, Surat Singh, Dalip Singh and Didar Singh petitioner; a daughter Smt. Kartar Kaur and his widow Smt. Jawali. After his death mutation of the land was sanctioned in the name of all the heirs in the revenue records. Before Narain Singh died, permanent rights in the land were conferred upon him by the President of India in the year 1956. The Managing Officer took up proceedings for cancellation of the alleged excess land allotted to him and made a reference to the Chief Settlement Commissioner for cancelling the excess land to the extent of 6.8-1/4 S.As. allotted to him in village Dialpur. The Chief Settlement Commissioner vide his order dated 20th December, 1966, copy of which is Annexure 'A' with the writ petition, set aside the parmanent rights conferred upon Narain Singh with respect of 6.8-1/4 S.As. The grievance of petitioner Didar Singh is that this order has been passed at the back of the legal heirs of Narain Singh who was since dead and this could not be done in view of the mandatory provisions of Section 24(3) of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954.

(2.) In the return, it has been averred that Chanchal Singh, one of the sons of Narain Singh, was present before the Managing Officer who directed him to appear before the Chief Settlement Commissioner on 20th December, 1966, and thus due notice had been given in accordance with law.

(3.) After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the opinion that the impugned order of the Chief Settlement Commissioner dated 20th December, 1966, copy of which is attached as Annexure 'A' with the writ petition, is liable to be quashed on the short ground that the said order has been passed at the back of the legal heirs of Narain Singh. It is not disputed that Narain Singh died much before the passing of the impugned order. He was succeeded by his five sons, a daughter and a widow. All the legal heirs of Narain Singh were the interested persons in the property of Narain Singh and no order affecting their rights adversely could be passed at their back without affording them an opportunity of being heard. The mere presence of Chanchal Singh before the Managing Officer will in no way validate the impugned order which has admittedly been passed at the back of the legal heirs of Narain Singh.