Summary of the orders

1. MR N. 20/1988-89 : Gian Chand Vs. State etc. FCR 6/7/1999

Land wned by Muslims; Bhagat Ram etc. recrded as Malguzars.

Claim f petitiner as sub lessee f urban evacuee land was upheld by CSC. Remaining land sld thrugh auctin. His bjectin against sale rejected by CSC and FCR. Case remanded by HC. Petitiner claimed that he purchased the remaining land frm Malguzars.

Held- Malguzars were nt ccupancy tenants but they cllected Land Revenue fr which cmmissin was paid (para 5). Prperty became evacuee after migratin f Muslim wners and tenants (Para 5, 7). Having himself been alltted part f the land as lessee f sub urban evacuee land, he can’t dispute the title f Central Gvt. in the land and say that the remaining khasra number is nt evacuee land.(Para 8).

2 MR N. 34/1998 : Mehnga Singh Vs. State etc. FCR 14/9/1999
Rukmani Devi, a displaced persn was alltted land in village Kamalpur. The alltment was cancelled in 1952 & fresh alltment made in village Dhariwal in 1953. The alltment in Kamalpur remained intact in Revenue recrds & land was sld t Baldev Singh etc. in 1957. Alltment f Kamalpur was cancelled when it came t ntice. It was challenged by vendees Baldev Singh. Petitin dismissed. Sale held t be bgus (Para 17)

3 N. 6/GSP/1997/CSC: Mehnga Singh Vs State CSC 14/7/1998

Successin certificate granted in respect f amunt lying depsited in a bank nt sufficient t prve the petitiner as successr in interest f a displaced persn.

4. MR N. 42/1993-94: Harbhajan Singh Etc. Vs. State : FCR 30/11/1999

Ishar Singh was alltted sme land in Ludhiana district n the basis f Gshwara alltment dated 26/5/1987. He writes t DS (Reh.) that DC/Tahsildar Ludhiana was nt alltting the balance land. DS (Reh.) asks Tahsildar (Phagwara) t allt the balance land in Ludhiana t Ishar Singh. Land is alltted n 25/7/1991. The Railways & Frest Dept. claimed that the land belnged t their department. CSC/DC cancelled the alltment & case cmes t FCR. FCR held:

Tahsildar Phagwara was nt cmpetent t allt the land in Ludhiana Tahsil withut a frmal ntificatin in Gvt. Gazette (Para 11).

The land belnged t Railways and Patwaris reprt that the land was evacuee was f n cnsequence. (Para 7).

Parchi alltment was in favur f Ishar Singh and therefre petitiners Gurbachan Singh etc. culd nt be placed in the wnership clumn withut sanctin f mutatin f inheritance f Ishar Singh (Para 9) Gurbachan Singh culd nt sell the land (Para 10) Vendees can’t claim t be bnafide.

Parentage f allttees dubtful (Para 13)

Surjit Singh GPA f allttees is acting as attrney f a number f ther claimants and specializing in filing belated alltments claims psing as partially unsatisfied claimants and have been getting these alltments n the basis f their links with the staff f Rehabilitatin Department. (Para 14)

5. MR N. 56/1998: Gian Chand etc. Vs. CSC etc. FCR 25/4/2000

Urban evacuee plt rdered t be alltted t Hazara Ram in 1969 but amunt nt depsited. The belated claim f the respndents as his legal heirs rejected by Tahsildar in 1993. Gian Chand his clse relatin claimed t be in pssessin frm 1986-1993 and damage charges were als depsited. SC and CSC set aside the rder f Tahsildar & remanded the case t Tahsildar fr deciding the claim f heirs f Hazara Ram first. Gian Chand apprached the FCR. Held by FCR:

Heirs f Hazara Ram have n claim since they tk n tangible steps t get the land alltted after making payment.

Gian Chand als desn’t have any claim. Payment f damage charges f n cnsequence. There is n evidence regarding the nature and duratin f pssessin.

Retrieve the prperty & sell it thrugh auctin.

6. MR N. 26/1996-97 Banarsi Dass Vs. State etc. FCR 23/5/2000

Petitiner was sld urban land in auctin in 1961 but the amunt was depsited in 1983. In the meantime land sld in auctin in 1964 t Respndent wh was als issued a sale certificate.

Held- Petitiner kept quite frm 1961 t 1983 and n sale mney depsited. Respndent has a valid sale certificate. Petitin dismissed.

7. MR N.40/1995-96: Suba Singh Vs. Krishan Baldev : FCR 25/7/2000

The petitiner purchased 51K-08M in pen auctin n 21/3/1959 and gt pssessin n 23/4/1960. Amended Rules( Chapter V-A) enabling the lessees t get the land transferred were published in the gazette n 26/11/1960. Respndent applied n 22/7/1961 fr transfer f 14K-5M claiming lessee wef 1/1/1956.

Held: Respndent has n claim. The amended Rules can’t have retrspective effect. Petitiner was alltted land befre the amended rules came int frce.

8. MR N.77/1988-89: Madan Gpal Vs. State etc. : FCR 14/12/1999

Petitiner Madan Gpal is stated t have been alltted land in 1967 but pssessin was nt given. Wadhawa Singh was alltted land elsewhere & he sld land t respndent but this alltment was cancelled. Respndent Shivinder wh was vendee f Wadhawa Singh stacked claim n the land alltted t petitiner n the grund that he was entitled t this land in lieu f cancelled alltment. held :

Petitiner- allttee nt interested in the alltment since Hari Krishan Mukhtiar -GPA hasn’t been successful in prducing the allttee & therefre the alltment is cancelled. Hari Krishan is actually attrney f Harmel wh allegedly gt the GPA frm Madan Gpal. (P 4)

Respndent vendee can’t be alltted land. Land can be alltted t displaced persns alne and nt t their vendees. nly the riginal allttee Wadhawa Singh culd have been prvided with alternative alltment and therefre alltment t Shivinder is cancelled.

9. MR N. 18/1997-98: Sm Parkash Vs. State etc. FCR 21/12/1999

Land alltted t m Prakash, Inder Praksh in 1993 in Balachaur Tahsil. Challenged by respndent n the grund that the parties were bgus.

Held -

At the time f partitin Tarlk Chand father f allttees was wner f the land as per Jamabandi f the village received frm Pakistan. Gshwara culd have been issued nly in favur f Tarlk Chand and nt in favur f m Prakash, Inder Prakash. There is tempering in the Sajra Nasal attached t jamabandi. Tarlk Chand alne is wner f land in 1946-47.

Inder Prakash died but his LRs nt brught n recrd. His GPA can’t represent him.

The allt tees/their LRs were nt prduced befre the Curt. The parties are bgus & alltment is cancelled.

10. MR N. 63/1990-91: Swaran Singh Vs. Pb. State FCR 7/12/1999

Petitiner claims t be legal heirs f Gandu wh was nt heard f many years and whse mutatin f inheritance was entered but nt sanctined. Petitiner nt successful in tracing his relatinship with Gandu. The pedigree table submitted by him differs frm the pedigree table n the mutatin sheet.

Claim dismissed.

11. MR N. 49/1997-98: Puran Chand Vs. U..I. FCR 3/8/1999

( See the rder f CSC dated 6/8/1999 at SN 24)

Land alltted t petitiners n the basis f their being lessees wef 1/1/1956 f urban land. Alltment cancelled n the cmplaint f Parent Teacher Assciatin f an adjining schl. Matter went t CSC wh impleaded the PTA as party. FCR held that -

PTA has been rightly impleaded as a party. It is in the interest f the petitiner that the cntrversy cmes t rest nce & fr all.

In passing it was bserved that Rule 119 f DPCR Rule 1955 bars appearance f legal representatives in prceedings under sectin 33 f DPCR Act.

12. MR N. 28/1996-97: Kuldip Singh Vs. State FCR 25/4/2000

(Als see the rder f CSC dated 16/11/1994 at SN 23)

Central Gvt. land acquired by Irrigatin department fr a canal. The canal was abandned and this land was used fr Wadala drain. The canal land was released frm acquisitin n 30/5/91 and alltted t displaced persns in ctber, 92. The alltment was cancelled by the CSC and petitin f the vendees was dismissed by the FCR n the grund :

The letter dated 30/5/91 was an internal letter f the Revenue Department addressed t Irrigatin Deptt. which was required t frmally dentify the land. The letter dated 30/5/91 will nt make the Irrigatin Deptt. land as Central Gvt. land. The land was recrded in the wnership f Irrigatin Deptt. and therefre was nt available fr alltment.

The petitiners can’t claim t be bnafide vendees. They gt khasra girdawari crrected in their favur just befre alltment and stated befre the Tahsildar that they have n bjectin if the land was alltted t the allt tees. Their mve was preplanned.

Land was recrded as Ghairmumkin in Jamabandi but was shwn as Barani in the prpsal fr alltment.

Undue haste in alltment and its subsequent sale – case f cnspiracy and bgus alltment.

13. MR N. 5/1994-95: Tulsi Ram Vs. CSC FCR 3/8/1999

N frmal rders f alltment. Patwari entered an un-authenticated and un-dated remark that Garibu was alltted land. Land purchased by the petitiner immediately thereafter. Alltment cancelled. Held by the FCR. It is a -

Case f fraudulent interplatin f Revenue recrd.

Petitiner nt a bnafide vendee.

Land can’t be alltted t him n the basis f pssessin.

14. MR N. 16/1992-93: Banarsi Dass Vs. State FCR 4/1/2000

Raj Saw Mill in pssessin f land measuring 4K-1M in Pathankt City since 1959. Tahsildar, SC, CSC alltted the land t ne f the partners in name. It was cntested by ne f tw partners left ut. The FCR held:

The firm has 3 partners & land can’t be alltted t ne partner.

The firm in pssessin, therefre land be alltted in favur f the firm.

15. MR N. 124/1986-87: Bachan Singh Vs. Arur Singh FCR 21/12/1999

Held-

n the death f allttee, the GPA executed in favur f petitiner was rendered ineffective and invalid.

The petitiner didn’t disclse the death f allttee. Nr did he implead their legal heirs n recrd. The petitiner frged and fabricated the wills frm the allt tees. Wills nt genuine.

16. MR N. 13/1996-97: Parduman Singh Vs. Kartar Singh FCR 12/9/2000

Alltment f Sub-urban land:

Displaced persn can nt insist that excess land be sld t him. The allttee has t apply fr alltment f excess area within 30 days f the cancellatin.

An allttee whse alltment was cancelled can’t dnate the land t a trust.

Allt tees are fictitius and bgus. They did nt appear and their addresses were fund fake. The alltment was made by GPAs f GPAs f the allttees. The signatures f the allt tees n different dcument didn’t match.

The cntentin f CSC that instructin prhibiting alltment f sub urban lands have n frce f law, is whlly misplaced. Gvt. cmpetent t issue instructins. Besides Rule 6(2) Package Deal Rules specifically prvides that sub urban lands will be dispsed f thrugh auctin.

Vendees can’t claim t be bnafide. The case revlves arund the different attrneys, thrugh and thrugh. Vendees didn’t appear and instead executed a GPA. When the allttee didn’t cntest the alltment in his favur, the questin f any ntice t be vendees didn’t arise.

Cunsel representing GPA f vendee was cunsel fr the allttees in the lwer curt. (Para 33)

17. MR N. 14/2000: Gurmail Singh Vs. CSC FCR 23/5/2000

Land wned in 2 villages in Pakistan. Land f ne village mrtgaged in 1943 fr 26 years. Land was alltted in India t the legal heirs f the landwner Gpal Dass in lieu f land left in Pakistan, including the land, which was mrtgaged.

The alltment f land made in lieu f mrtgaged land was cancelled when it was discvered that the mrtgagees didn’t migrate t India. Later ne f the legal heirs f Gpal Dass viz Santsh Kumar managed t get the cancelled land alltted. This was subsequently cancelled by CSC. It was challenged befre the FCR wh held:

The petitiners did nt disclse abut the purchase f land in the cases filed by them earlier.

They cncealed the fact that their MR had been dismissed earlier.

The legal heirs f the allttee didn’t file Mutalba Araji fr the land mrtgaged by him in Pakistan. The legal heirs f Gpal Dass didn’t depsit the mrtgage mney with the Custdian befre 1954 and get the lands redeemed.

M didn’t care t ensure that the alltment was nt made earlier t any ther legal heir f Gpal Dass r whether Santsh Kumar was the sle surviving heir f Gpal Dass.

Vendees are frntmen f vendrs and have been intrduced t cmplicate the matter and t facilitate unlawful perpetuatin f a fraudulent claim.

18. MR N. 14/2000: Surjit Singh etc. Vs Dalip Singh etc. FCR 30/5/2000

Alltment f land recrded as Rasta. Alltment cancelled. Held -

The alltment was managed by GPA. The GPA failed t discharge his nus t ensure the persnal appearance f the riginal allttee.

The GPA is suppsed t knw the whereabuts and when directed t prduce his principal.

Land recrded as a path/Rasta can’t be alltted.

Petitiner can’t claim t be a bnafide vendee. He purchased land recrded as Rasta and that t fr a paltry sum.

Pssessin f the land alltted was given n 3/1/1989 and land sld n 16/1/1989.

19. rder u/s 33 DPCR Act : Alltment case Girdhari Lal FCR 14/11/2000

Case f new alltment in lieu f alltment wrngly cancelled. The FCR held that:

N merit in the applicatin. It was nt signed by the applicant but by the advcate nly.

N prf f the earlier alltment having been cancelled.

Lng delay f 37 years in making applicatin fr new alltment when the earlier alltment was said t have been cancelled 37 years ag.

The applicant did nt appear inspite f directin frm the Curt.

Claim-bgus.

20. rder u/s 33 DPCR Act: Alltment case f Hukum Singh – FCR 13/9/2000

Claim f Hukum Singh rejected in 1959. Inder Singh GPA f Kartar Singh s/ Hukum Singh submitted an applicatin in 1984 fr alltment. M declared him eligible fr 23 St. Acres. rder set aside and case remanded. It was held by the FCR:

Delay f 25 years frm 1959 t 1984 nt explained. He was majr at the time f partitin and culd have filed the claim. He didn’t file the claim even by the deadline f 31/12/1963 prescribed under Rule 67 f DPCR Rules.

The M didn’t discuss the reasn fr change f ptin f Kartar Singh frm Haryana t Punjab.

The genuineness f the claim was nt verified but it was based nly n the chhant Jamabandi.

Hukum Singh’s claim was rejected in 1959 because he didn’t file “Mutalba claim’. ther frmalities prescribed under the East Punjab Refugee (Registratin f Land Claim) Act, 1948 nt cmpleted.

N death certificate f Hukum Singh n file. His successin and Kartar Singh being the sle heir nt verified.

Hukum Singh kept quite after 1959 and Kartar Singh became active after 25 years at the age f 55 in 1984.

21. rder u/s 33 DPCR Act: Alltment case f Mangla Ram – FCR 14/12/2000

Allttment t Mangla Ram cancelled in 1959 n the grund that he wanted cash cmpensatin. File remained in prcess till 1963. Tek Chand claiming t successr in-interest f Mangla Ram filed the applicatin in 1996 and alltment allwed in 1998. rders set aside by the FCR and held that:

Applicatin nt signed by the applicant but signed nly by the advcate.

Parentage f Mangla Ram mentined differently n different papers

His successins nt verified. He died in 1973 and his sn died n 1992. Tek Chand made applicatin in 1996.

Lng delay f 33 years nt explained.

22. rder u/r 33 DPCR Act: Alltment case f Niranjan Singh - FCR 26/12/2000

Lands alltted in 1948 t three brthers. In 1987 legal heir f the ne f the brthers submits an applicatin that the brthers were alltted less area. M accepts the applicatin in 1991 and mre land alltted. rder f M set aside: Held

Land alltted in 1948 and the allt tees didn’t pint ut any deficiency. Very strange that 3rd generatin pinting ut the deficiency.

Serius discrepancies abut the LRs f the brthers.

Applicatin filed n the basis f phtcpies f stray dcuments btained frm the ffice f Directr, Land Recrds.

Lng delay f 39 years nt explained.

23. N. 6/CSC State Vs. Teja Singh etc. CSC/KPT 16/11/1994

(See the rders f FCR at SN 12 abve)

rder f Tahsildar alltting land set-aside by CSC

Urban land can’t be alltted t migrants frm Pakistan (Instructins dated 12/8/1970).

Land belnged t Punjab Gvt. in the Irrigatin Department and therefre was nt available fr alltment.

Allt tees were nt given pssessin which was mandatry u/r 58 f DPCR Rules.

Land alltted with within 15 days f applicatin-A case f undue haste.

Land sld withut the permissin f Gvernment in vilatin f Rule 102 f DPCR Rules.

Land was Ghairmumkin and therefre culdn’t have been alltted.

Ghairmumkin land was wrngly mentined as Barani in the alltment prpsal.

Land alltted in 4 cases withut any Gshwara alltment.

Vendees bught drain land and vluntarily ‘surrendered’ pssessin t the allttees just befre alltment – can’t claim t be bnafide vendees. They wanted t regularize their illegal ccupatin f drain land.

24. MR/98/Jal/96 Puran Chand, Kapur Chand CSC 6/8/1999 Vs. U..I.

Urban land alltted t the petitiner n the basis f their being sub lessees wef 1/1/1956. Alltment set aside by CSC and held -

Name f lessee nt recrded, therefre there can’t be any sub lessee.

Parents name f Karam Chand ‘sub lessee’ recrded differently in Khasra Girdawari Register f different perids.

‘Sub lessee’ recrded as Ghair Marusi.

Land recrded as Banjar Kadim and therefre culd nt have been alltted.

25. N. M/HQ/2K/15 Karnail Singh etc Vs State f Pb. M 18/9/2000 S.S.Khara

Applicatin submitted in 1998 fr alltment f land in lieu f lands in Pakistan. n perusal f Jamabandi received frm Pakistan it was fund that the gvt. land was given n lease fr reclamatin t the applicants and fr their failure t depsit the rent, the lease was cancelled.

Hence- N merit in the applicatin

26. N. M/HQ/2K/24 Hukam Singh Vs. State f Pb. M 20/11/2000 SS Khara

Land alltted t a migrant and alltment incrprated in Revenue Recrd. After his death the land was sld by the GPA. Sns f the allttee wanted the alltment t be cancelled. Held by M:

Rle f Rehabilitatin Department ver after alltment.

Any subsequent fraudulent act can’t be rectified by it.