HARDIT SINGH Vs. CHIEF SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is a displaced person from West Pakistan where he owned land in villages - Chak No. 281/HR and Chak No. 310/HR, Tehsil Fortabas in Bahawalpur State. In lieu of the land left by him in West Pakistan, he was allotted 36.5-1/2 standard acres in Chak Palliwala, Tehsil Fazilka, District Ferozepore. In the year 1965, his allotment to the extent of 19.3-1/2 standard acres was cancelled by respondent No. 2, vide his order (Annexure 'A') dated 10th May, 1965. The petitioner successfully appealed before the Settlement Commissioner and the order of the Managing Officer, respondent No. 2, was set aside, vide his order dated 6th of July, 1965. The matter was taken to the Chief Settlement Commissioner by the Department, who passed the impugned order (Annexure 'C') on 15th of December, 1966 and set aside the order of the Settlement Commissioner and restored that of the Managing Officer, respondent No. 2. It is in this situation that the present writ petition has been filed against the order of the Chief Settlement Commissioner (Annexure 'C'). Return has been filed on behalf of the Department.

(2.) The sole point for determination is whether the Chief Settlement Commissioner was justified to cancel the land in dispute on the basis of an unattested mutation and also in the absence of any registered document. On page 47, paragraph 24 of the Land Resettlement Manual, it is provided as under :-

(3.) Mr. Ahluwalia, learned counsel for the respondents, has relied upon a Division Bench judgment of this Court in Civil Writ No. 491 of 1962 (Sadha Singh etc. V. Guran Ditta etc., 1965 AIR(P&H) 225 decided on 23rd September, 1964 wherein their Lordships of the Division Bench observed that paragraph 20 at page 74 of the Land Resettlement Manual did not by any means affect the question before them nor laid down any positive rule of law commending obedience. Before the aforesaid Division Bench the question was regarding a transaction which took place between two non-Muslims but in the instant case the transaction took place between non-Muslim and Muslim. Before the Division Bench, the transaction was also supported by registered document and in that situation it was held that the transaction was valid and binding. However, the observations of the Supreme Court in Dhunichand Hakim's case were not brought to the notice of the Division Bench.