HAKIM SINGH Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE brief facts giving rise to the aforesaid petition may be stated as under:

(2.) THE petitioners allege that they were all displaced persons from Pakistan and their claim to compensation was verified by the Compensation Officer on 27.1.1953, for an area of 129.14.6 standard acres. In satisfaction of that claim, the petitioners were allotted an area of 155 bighas 9 biswas, in village Majidsura, Tehsil -Bhadra, somewhere in the year 1956. No order of allotment has been placed on record in spite of the directions of this Court on the ground the same is not available with the petitioners. However, thereafter it appears that there was complaint that the verification to which the petitioners lay claims was not correct, therefore, the proceedings were again initiated against the petitioners for verificatiomaf the claim and the Chief Settlement Commissioner vide his order dated September 30, 1963; rejected the claim of the petitioners. The order of the Chief Settlement Commissioner has not been filed, which could have throw light as to on what grounds the verification which was alleged to have been made in 1953 was found to be wrong. It appears that the petitioners have further prosecuted the matter after the order of the Chief Settlement Commissioner; but the petitioners have chosen not to produce any orders in that record or details of the proceedings that took place thereafter. But, he rest contended by stating that the proceedings ultimately terminated against the petitioners. It is alleged by the petitioners that while proceedings aforesaid were going on and order was made allowing the petitioners to retain the land on payment of Rs. 30,000/ -, against which the petitioners proceeded to pay a sum of Rs. 6,571/ -. Presumbly this offer was made to the petitioners in terms of Rule 63 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Rules, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as Ithe Rules of 1955). However, the order demanding Rs. 30,000/ - and details about the same have not been furnished. The petitioner was called upon by notice dated 10.2.1975 by the Managing Officer to deposit the balance amount. The petitioners apparently were not willing to deposit the balance amount and requested the Managing Officer to wait until the proceedings regarding allotment on account of verification was pending. After waiting for about 6 months, by order dated 6.8.1975, the allotment in favour of the petitioners was finally cancelled. The appeal against the order dated 6.8.1975 was also rejected by the order dated 23.2.1979 and Revision against the order of the Revenue Appellate Authority by the petitioner was also rejected by the Chief Settlement Commissioner on 11.3.1980. These three orders respectively Exhibits 1, 2 and 3 are in challenge before this Court in the petition.

(3.) A preliminary objection has been raised by learned Counsel for the respondents that it is apparent from the pleadings itself, that the petitioners had been transferee of the land in question before filing of the writ petition and they were left with no title for protection of which they could prosecute the petition. They, therefore, have no locus standi to maintain the writ petition.