IN THE COURT OF SH.S.S.KHARA,PCS DEPUTY SECRETARY REVENUE CUN M.O. (HQ) REHABILITATION PUNJAB KOTHI NO.280 SECTOR 10-A,CHANDIGARH.
(1) Case No. Date of Institution Date of Decision
M.O./HQ/20 2.6.1998 9.7.2001
Lakha Singh S/o Sunder Singh Resident of Doraha Mandi Tehsil Payal ( Ludhiana).
Application for land allotment in the name of Sunder Singh allottee S/o Sher Singh village Talwandi Bhindra Tehsil Narowal Distt.Sialkot through his son Lakha Singh.
Present: Lakha Singh petitioner alongwith his Counsel Sh.G.S.Nagra.
(2) Case No. Date of Institution Date of Decision
M.O./HQ/25 28.1.1999 9.7.2001
Sunder Singh ( deceased) son of Sher Singh through legal heirs Maluk Singh, Gurdev Singh sons, Harmesh Kaur, Kuldip Kaur daughters of Virsa Singh S/o Sunder Singh S/o Sher Singh through General Attorney Satwinder Kaur W/o Maluk Singh r/o village Doraha Distt. Ludhiana.
Petition for allotment of land in –lieu of the land left by Sunder Singh S/o Sher Singh.
Present: Sh.Maluk Singh husband of applicant Satwinder Kaur.
These two petitions have been filled separately by the legal heirs of Sunder Singh S/o Sher Singh . Since in both the petitions issue is same so they are being decided by single order and their clubbing has revealed that each petitioner has tried to over reach this court by showing wrong facts about the other heir although both the parties are resident of same place i.e. village Doraha Distt. Ludhiana.
In first petition filed by Lakha Singh S/o Sunder Singh it has been contended that allottee Sunder Singh had abandoned land in village Talwandi Tehsil Narowal Distt.Sialkot ( Now in Pakistan). At the time of General allotment area measuring 2-2½ SAS was allotted in village NISSOKE Tehsil Ajnala in Amritsar District. The allottee was not in a position to survive his family with the said small holding and as such the land was given for cultivation to the tenants. Now this land speaks in the name of one Mohinder Singh s/o Piara Singh as per entries appearing in the Jamabandi for the year 1994-95.
It has been further contended that Sunder Singh allottee died leaving behind 2 sons namely Lakha Singh & Virsa Singh. Sh.Virsa Singh had already died and the present application is being moved on behalf of Lakha Singh applicant. The present case is covered under section 25(2) of the Act and the deficiency in the allotment may also be made good. Since other Co-displaced persons from the same village had also been allotted land in village NISSO KE Tehsil Ajnala and such allotment in the name of Sunder Singh may kindly be made permanent and if area is not available then the alternative allotment may kindly be made. It has been held by our own High Court in such cases that Rule 67-A is not at all applicable.
In 2nd petition filed by 2nd son Virsa Singh’s legal heirs through Satwinder Kaur General Attorney it has been contended that petitioner’s Grand Father Sunder Singh S/o Sher Singh owned land in Pakistan in village Talwandi Bhinder Distt.Sialkot in lieu of which allotment to the extent of 2 SA 2 units was made in Village NISSO KE Tehsil Ajnala but no khasra numbers were allotted at the spot as a result the possession of land could not be obtained by the allottee or his legal heirs. Sh.Sunder Singh S/o Sher Singh had died during partition of the Country leaving behind his legal heirs as shown in the
following pedigree table:-
(died during partition)
| | |
Lakha Singh(son) Dharam Kaur Virsa Singh (Son)
died issue-less bachelor (daughter) (Died)
during partition. alive |
| | | |
Maluk Singh Gurdev Singh Harmesh Kuldip
(son) (son) Kaur Kaur
It has been further contended that petitioners have not obtained any allotment of land in any part of India in lieu of the land left by their Grand Father in Pakistan. The petitioners being the legal heirs of deceased Sunder Singh are entitled to get allotment as per the entries of Jamabandi received from Pakistan as held by Punjab & Haryana High Court and Supported by Supreme Court of India. In the end it has been prayed that the petitioners may kindly be allowed allotment of land in lieu of the land left by their grand father Sunder Singh S/o Sher Singh in Pakistan.
Arguments in both the petitions were heard on last Peshi. Lakha Singh’s Counsel repeated the points mentioned in their petition. Similarly Satwinder Kaur also repeated the points mentioned in their petition. But she admitted that Lakha Singh is still alive and have sons & daughters and resides at Doraha and she could not satisfy me as to how Lakha Singh has been shown dead in her petition.
I have gone through the contents of both the petition. Comparison of both the petitions reveals contradictory facts. In first petition Lakha Singh has mentioned that Sunder Singh allottee died leaving behind 2 sons namely Lakha Singh and Virsa Singh. Sh.Virsa Singh had already died. In the petition he has not mentioned that any legal heirs of Virsa Singh are existing. In the petition he has tried to give impression after the death of Virsa Singh he is the only legal heirs left. In the 2nd application/petition filed by the legal heirs of Virsa Singh it has been specifically contended that Sunder Singh’s other son Lakha Singh had died bachelor & issueless during partition. In this way they have claimed to be the only legal heir of Sunder Singh allottee through Virsa Singh.
Other contradictory facts given in the petitions relates to factum of possession. In first petition Lakha Singh has contended that at the time of general allotment allottee Sunder Singh was allotted 2-2½ SAs in village NISSOKE Tehsil Ajnala. The allottee was not in a position to survive his family with the said small holding and as such the land was given for cultivation to the tenants. But in the 2nd petition filed by LRs of Virsa Singh it has been claimed that no possession was not given to the allottees as no Khasra numbers were allocated.
In this way both the claimants in both the petitions have given contradictory facts about legal heirs of Sunder Singh as well as factum of Possession after the allotment. In this way both the parties have not come with clean hands to this court. Their intention of concealing material facts is manifest of evil designs against each other. In such cases Supreme Court of India in the case of M/S Seemax Construction (P) Ltd.Versus State Bank of India and another decided on 12.12.1991 in 1993 (1) All India Land Laws Reporter 41 (S.C) has observed as follows:-
“Words and Phrases – Material facts- Suits filed earlier, case set up should be the same, parties may be the same, should be mentioned while claiming a relief in the later suit-The tendency of the litigants to approach different courts to somehow or the other obtain interim orders without full disclosure of earlier judicial proceedings and without full disclosers of all material facts is on constant increase and it is necessary for due administration of justice to reiterate the legal proposition that such a person may be refused a hearing on merits.
Even on merits the silence for 50 years on the part of applicant Lakha Singh and Virsa Singh/his legal heirs is intriguing and no explanation has been tendered on the file. No detail of the Khasra numbers of allotment of which the possession was delivered to Lakha Singh & Virsa Singh ( as admitted by Lakha Singh in his petition) has been given and no documentary evidence such as copies of Khasra Girdawaris of those Khasra Nos. and how & when the land so possessed slipped from the possession of Lakha Singh and Virsa Singh has also not been explained any where. Once the land was allotted at the time of general allotment in 1950 to Sunder Singh (deceased) through Lakha Singh & Virsa Singh and possession was delivered ( as admitted by Lakhs Singh in the petition) the duty of Rehabilitation was over., it was the responsibility of the applicants to maintain their possession.
Keeping in view the above discussion relating to factum possession as well as not approaching the courts with clean hands both the petitions are dismissed. Copy of this order be placed in both the files.
Announced in open court.
Deputy Secretary Revenue-
Dated: 9.7.2001 Cum -Managing Officer (HQ)