JAGAN NATH Vs. CHIEF SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER, REHABILITATION DEPARTMENT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) , C&S This is a petition under Section 33 of the Displaced Person (Compensation & Rehabilitation) Act, 1954 against the order dated 19.5.1995 passed by the Chief Settlement Commissioner, Haryana whereby the transfer of the area adjoining plot No. 2 D/111, N.I.T. Faridabad in favour of the petitioner was dis-allowed.

(2.) THE brief facts of the case are that the area adjoining plot No. 2 D/111 NIT Faridabad measuring 147 Sq. Yds. belonging to the Rehabilitation Department was offered for sale to the petitioner by the Tehsildar (Sales)-cum-Managing Officer, Faridabad vide his letter No. 291/M.D./TSF dated 1.3.1989 under the Government policy of occupation. Though in the margin of the offer letter the plot has been shown as area sandwiched between road and House No. 2 D/111, but it was intended to be transferred on the basis of occupation and substantial construction under the Government policy dated 11.7.88. This case was referred by the Tehsildar (Sales) to the Chief Settlement Commissioner, Haryana for approval as per condition No. 9 of the offer letter. The Chief Settlement Commissioner appointed a Survey Committee to find out the exact position of the ground. It was found that the area in question was lying vacant and therefore could not be transferred to the petitioner under the Government policy of unauthorised occupation. The C.S.C. therefore did not approve the transfer and the offer was set aside vide his orders dated 19.5.1995. It is against this order that the present petition has been filed. It is also mentioned that the petitioner has attached the unauthenticated copy of the impugned order with certain corrections/additions with pencil on it. Still the petition was entertained in the interest of justice and fair play.

(3.) I have carefully considered the submissions made by both sides and also examined the relevant record on the file and facts of the case. The Ld. chief Settlement Commissioner vide his impugned orders dated 19.5.1995 declined to approve the transfer of the plot in question on the grounds that the possession and substantial construction as required under the Government instructions were not proved in this case. A perusal of record also reveals that the site in question was lying vacant in the year 1989. It was either not in possession of anybody. It was, however, found to be surrounded with the boundary wall. There was no construction whatsoever on the plot. Therefore even if the possession of the petitioner on this plot is presumed, there was no construction, what to speak of any substantial construction on or before 1.1.1982. The petitioner has not produced any evidence in support of his claim of possession and substantial construction. Only one house tax receipt in respect of House No. 2 D/111 has been produced. This is for the year 1986-87. One electricity bill has also been produced which does not speak about the possession of the disputed site. Nevertheless these documents pertain to the House No. 2 D/111 and not to the site in dispute. Therefore quite evidently the case of the petitioner is not under the policy instructions dated 11.7.1988 and 11.8.1988 of the Government. The Chief Settlement Commissioner has therefore rightly set aside the offer. The offer letter issued by the Tehsildar (Sales) was in violation of the Government policy of transfer of the evacuee property to the unauthorised occupants on the reserve price. The offer was void ab-initio. Therefore the doctrine of promissory estoppel shall not apply here as claimed by the petitioner. The rulings cited by the petitioner i.e. 1967 PLR 656 and AIR 1990 (Punjab and Haryana) 110 are not applicable to the facts of the present case. These judgments relate to the allotment of acquired evacuee agricultural land to a displaced person who holds a verified claim. In the instant case it is not the allotment of land in lieu of verified claim, but the transfer of surplus evacuee property to unauthorised persons under the government policy dated 11.7.1988 and 11.8.1988 framed under the rules. Another point which might come up in this case is that the land in dispute is adjacent to the house of the petitioner and therefore it should be allotted to the petitioner under the Adjacent Land Policy of 1984 of the government. I find from the petition that the petitioner has not claimed the transfer of this property on the above ground, though a mention has been made that the case of the petitioner is covered under the policy decision of 28.2.1984 which is called the Adjacent Lands Policy, but the petitioner has emphasised his eligibility for the transfer of this land under the government policy dated 11.7.1988 and 11.8.1988 relating to the unauthorised occupants. The petitioner has not either adduced any evidence in support of his claim of the transfer of the land in dispute under the Adjacent Land Policy. The Chief Settlement Commissioner, Haryana has mentioned in his impugned order that the plot in dispute is situated in the back of the house of the petitioner which can be disposed of independently. It is thus not covered under the Adjacent Land Policy of the Government. In view of the above, the petition is dismissed. To be communicated. Petition dismissed.