IN THE COURT OF SHRI S.S.KHARA, PCS DEPUTY SECRETARY REVENUE-CUM-MANAGING OFFICER (HEADQUARTER) REHABILITATION, PUNJAB KOTHI NO.280, SECTOR 10-A, CHANDIGARH.
Case No. Date of Institution Date of Decision.
MO/HQ/13 18.11.95 18.6.2001
Village Gharyala Tehsil Patti, Distt. Amritsar.
State of Punjab. …Respondent.
Application for making deficiency of land allotment in the name of Hardit Singh Resaldar son of Ram Singh allottee in lieu of the land abandoned in Chak No.133/91, Tehsil and District Montgomri (now in Pakistan).
Present: Sh.G.S.Nagra, Advocate.
The application has been made under section 25(2) of Displaced Persons (C & R) Act, 1954. In this petition it has been contended that Hardit Singh son of Ram Singh had abandoned land in village Chak No.133/9L Tehsil District Montgomery (now in Pakistan). In lieu of land left in Pakistan the land allotment was made in the name of Hardit Singh (deceased) son of Ram Singh through Harcharan Singh son of Hardit Singh, Avtar Singh, Jagtar Singh sons of Shiv Charan Singh in villages Gharyala (20-4½ S.A.), Valtoha (10-8½ Units) Mahmoodpur (7-0 S.A) of Patti Tehsil District Amritsar. The area allotted in village Gharyala and Valtoha is ownership of applicants. At the time of consolidation the land of village Mahmoodpur was put into common pool and as per order dated 20.6.67 of the Addl. Director Consolidation of Holdings, Punjab, Jalandhar the land has been allotted in the name of Hardit Singh allottee but vide order dated 11.11.85 of A.C. Ist Grade Patti mutation has been rejected.
It has been further contended that it is the duty of the Department to make the deficiency of allotment good and as such the present application is covered under section 25(2) of the Act.
This case has been heard and examined today in the presence of Sh. G.S.Nagra learned counsel for the applicants. The perusal of the contents of application nowhere reveals that the area allotted in village Mahmoodpur was cancelled or withdrawn by the Rehabilitation Department. T is inferred that till Consolidation proceedings in village the allotted area was standing with Hardit Singh/his heirs. The applicants have claimed that area was exchanged under some order dated 20.6.67 passed by Additional Director Consolidation of Holdings Punjab and on the basis of the above order mutation No.999 was entered but the same was rejected by A.C.Ist Grade Patti vide order dated 11.11.1985. Once the area was allotted and handed over to Hardit Singh/his heirs in 1950 the role of the Rehabilitation Department was over. If during Consolidation proceedings held in Mid sixties the area was exchanged by order dated 20.6.67 passed by Additional Director, Consolidation of Holdings, Punjab, Jalandhar and it was subsequently not reflected in the revenue record in the name of Hardit Singh/his heirs then the fault is either lies with Consolidation Department or Revenue Department.
In view of the above discussion this application is ill conceived and ill advised. On the facts and circumstances of the present case no relief is admissible under the provisions of Displaced Persons (C & R) Act, 1954. Hence the petition is liable to be dismissed and this petition is accordingly dismissed.
Announced in open court.
Dated: 18.6.2001 (S.S.KHARA)
Deputy Secretary-cum-Managing Officer (HQ)