SARAN KAUR Vs. DY CUSTODIAN GENERAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner by way of this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 103 of the Constitution of Jammu and Kashmir has challenged the order passed by respondents 1 and 2 relating to the cancellation of the allotment of the land in her favour, which has been allotted to her being a displaced person. For the disposal of the present petition, it is not necessary to burden this order by detailing the facts in dispute. Precisely the case of the petitioner is that she alongwith her sister Charan Kour, who were allotted Evacuee Land in Rakh Gadhigarh, Chata, Gadhigarh Rani Bagh, Tehsil Jamrnu. Later on she became the head of the family, as shown in the Ration Card issued to her. Respondent No. 3 Mst. Parwati mutually exchanged the land whereby the petitioner transferred her allotted land in favour of respondent No. 3 and got in exchange her allotted land at Rakh Gadhigarh, which was subsequently regularized by the competent authority and thus the petitioner remained in the possessipp ofthealloted land as under:

(2.) THE complaint filed by respondent No. 3 against the petitioner and her father S. Hukam Singh, matter came up for Consideration before the Provincial Rehabilitation officer, Jammu. The matter was dealt with in file No. 277 of 1969 and was disposed of by his order passed on October 25, 1971, by which it has been categorically held that the case of Hukam Singh should be examined and the petitioner was held to be a separate camp family from him, whereby it was held that she has no double allotment. Against the said order, respondent No. 2 -Mst. Parwati filed a revision before the Deputy Custodian General, Jammu who in file No. 44/Revision of 1971 decided the case on March, 1. 1972 allowing the revision, remanding the case to the Provincial Rehabilitation Officer with the directions detailed in the last paragraph of his order that the case of allotment of Hukam Singh and the petitioner Saran Kour be examined thoroughly by the Provincial Rehabilitation officer. The Provincial Rehabilitation Officer on remand by his order dated November 25, IS74 (Annexure -4) to the present petition held that the allotment in the name of Hukam Singh and the allotment of Saran Kour petitioner has been secured by dishonest means and thus concealing the facts. Hence the allotment in favour of the petitioner has been cancelled. On revision being filed by the petitioner against the said order, the learned Divisional Commissioner with powers of Deputy Custodian General, Jammu vide his order passed on April 1, 1976 (Annexure -5) to the petition upheld the order of the Provincial Rehabilitation Officer with a slight modification to the extent that the cancelled land shall be utilized first in making up the deficiency of respondent No. 3 Mst. Parwati and the balance land, if my shall be utilized for allotment to other deserving displaced persons.

(3.) LEARNED couusel for the petitioner attacked the above said two orders and submitted before me that the Provincial Rehabilitati -n Officer respondent No. 1 while passing the impugned order (Annexure -4) disregarded the directions given by the Deputy Custodian Canard by his order dated March 1, 1972 by which the case is remanded, the approach of the Divisional / Commissioner Deputy Custodian General in confirming the order of the Provincial Rehabilitation Officer vide his order dated 1, 1976 (Annexure -5) is also attacked on the ground of illegality in the light of the observations made in the order passed by his predecessor on March 1, 1972. It is also submitted that in view of the authoritative pronouncement of this court by a Full Bench decision reported in 1975 K. L. J. 277 (Shrimati Daya Wanti Vs. Deputy Custodian General and anr), once the petitioner has been held a separate family of which the Ration card is also on record, the order of cancellation is complete disregard of the settled principles of law. The facts of the above said authority are practically similar to the case in hand. Learned counsel for the respondent in reply vehemently argued that the case referred to above is distinguishable on facts and in the instant case, it being in clear violation of the settled principles of law that a family cannot gte the benefit of double allotment, which has been held by respondents 1 and 2 under the impugned orders, the petitioner has no case and right to agitate before this court in the present writ petition.