Government of Punjab Department of Revenue & Rehabilitation (Legal & Policy Branch)
An application dated 28.3.1995 was made by one Nirmal Singh through his counsel Sh.G.S.Nagra before the Managing Officer, Rehabilitation Department, Chandigarh wherein he requested for allotment of land in lieu of land abandoned by his father Gian Singh in village Panwana Bajwa, Tehsil Pasrur, District Sialkot (Pakistan). In the said application it was stated that two real brothers of Gian Singh, father of the petitioner, namely, Khazan Chand and Ganga Ram had been allotted land in district Hoshiarpur and thus the provisions of Rule 67-A of the Displaced Persons(C & R) Rules,1955, were not applicable to his case. The application was accompanied by photostat copies of jamabandis pertaining to the land of Gian Singh obtained from the office of Director Land Records in March, 1995.
Thereafter, the Managing Officer obtained a report regarding entry in the I-D Register from the office of Director Land Records and solely on the basis of the same and an eight line statement of the applicant, the Managing Officer vide his order dated 9.9.1996 accepted the entitlement of Nirmal Singh for allotment of land to the tune of 1 SA 14 Units after imposing cut of 1 SA 6½ Units. Pursuantly, the Goshwara allotment was prepared and the case for clearance submitted to the Government. At the Govt. level a clearance was given vide letter dated 18.5.98 on the condition that before issuing the Goshwara the Managing Officer would satisfy himself regarding the land mortgaged by the claimant, as certain photostat copies relating to the status of the land were also available on record.
Instead of passing any order in respect of this aspect of the matter the Managing Officer issued a Goshwara allotment in the name of Gian Singh son of Labhu Ram and affixed the photograph of Nirmal Singh, present petitioner without mentioning whether Gian Singh was dead or alive and whether Nirmal Singh was his sole successor or not. This Goshwara was received back from Tehsildar, Patiala for re-verification whereafter it lay in hibernation for two years when it was detected by the present Managing Officer. Certain irregularities in the issue of this Goshwara were noticed by him and hence the present reference was made to the Government.
2. It was pointed out by the Managing Officer that while establishing the entitlement of the applicant Nirmal Singh, L.Rs of Gian Singh have not been verified. Even the pedigree table given by the applicant showed a sister by the name of Bhajan Kaur but the reasons for ignoring Bhajan Kaur were not indicated while passing the order dated 9.9.96 as also while preparing the Goshwara. So much that no proof of Nirmal Singh being the son of Gian Singh son of Labhu Ram in whose name the jamabandi was being presented was obtained/verified. The Managing Officer also pointed out that although in his statement dated 2.9.1996 Sh. Nirmal Singh had declared that his father had expired in 1962 yet the Goshwara allotment had been made in the name of Gian Singh without indicating that he was dead and to make the Goshwara realistic a copy of photograph of Nirmal Singh had been appended thereon without mentioning his name therein. After about two years of issuing of Goshwara a shrewdly worded affidavit dated 19.5.1998 had been stealthily placed in the file which reads as under:-
“1. That my father Shri Gian Singh (deceased) son of Shri Labhu Ram of village Panwana Bajwa, Tehsil Pasrur, District Sialkot (Pakistan) left the agricultural land.
The present Managing Officer pointed out that through this affidavit the petitioner had tried to cover up the lapse shown in the pedigree table wherein he had declared that he had a sister by the name of Bhajan Kaur; he had also tried to cover up the eventuality that the land might have been allotted to Gian Singh by declaring “that I have not so far been allotted any land anywhere in India …………” It was unbelievable that Shri Gian Singh after filing Mutalba claim on 29.3.1948 slept over the matter for 14 years till his death (which as per Nirmal Singh’s statement dated 2.9.96 occurred in 1962), and it took another 33 years for Nirmal Singh to realise this omission.
On receipt of the reference from the Managing Officer it was considered fit to hear the claimant and he was called over for this purpose on 9.1.2001. His statement was also got recorded on that date.
3. I have carefully examined the record of the case and heard Nirmal Singh. In my opinion he is not entitled for allotment of any land in lieu of the land abandoned by Gian Singh in Pakistan. Personal hearing given to Nirmal Singh does not offer any clarification with regard to the infirmities noticed by the present Managing Officer but rather confirms the view that the claim is totally bogus. In his statement given on 9.1.2001 he stated that he did not give any application till 1995 as he had been told that all allotments had been stopped. In 1995 when he learnt that allotments were being made he went to office of the Rehabilitation Department (then in Sector 34) after obtaining copies of the relevant record and engaged a counsel to pursue his case. In his application dated 28.3.95 he stated that he had made many representations. Again in the said application he has shown that Gian Singh had two children viz a son (Nirmal Singh) and a daughter Bhajan Kaur, whereas in his statement dated 9.1.2001 he has stated that Gian Singh had two sons and one daughter, and that his brother had died in 1975-76. There are many contradictions noticed in the information given by the applicant. In the statement given before the then Managing Officer on 2.9.1996 Nirmal Singh had stated that his father had died in 1962 and he had not been allotted any land in lieu of the land left in Pakistan. In the statement given on 9.1.2001 he has stated that his father died in 1973. This factor alone casts a cloud on the credentials of Nirmal Singh. He confesses to having no other papers to prove his credentials except the ones he had attached with his case before the earlier Managing Officer. All these papers are copies of record obtained from Director Land Records’ office in 1995, and there is no independent paper in his possession to connect him to the claim or the original claimant. It is a matter of concern that Nirmal Singh does not know the date of death of his own father. Even otherwise no justification is forthcoming as to why Gian Singh remained silent upto the date of his death and why thereafter for many long years the petitioner also remained silent on the subject. The “affidavit” dated 19.5.1998 which has been produced by Nirmal Singh (as an afterthought) is not attested by any authorised officer. There is long delay of 47 years which period elapsed between the submission of the mutalba claim and the submission of the present application. The contradictory statements made by the petitioner before the Managing Officer and before the undersigned make it quite evident that there is no substance in the claim of the petitioner. The Managing Officer certainly erred in liberally allowing the claim without proper verification.
In view of aforestated position, I am of the opinion that the clearance already granted was obtained by playing fraud on the Department. Therefore, the reference is accepted and in exercise of my powers under section 33 of the Displaced Persons (C & R) Act, 1954 the clearance already granted is hereby withdrawn and the claim of Nirmal Singh for allotment is declined.
Order to be communicated both through registered post as also through process.
Chandigarh, dated (Shyama Mann)
the 22nd March, 2001 Financial Commissioner Revenue,