M.R. No. 77/1988-89

IN THE COURT OF MRS. SHYAMA MANN, IAS, FINANCIAL COMMISSIONER REVENUE, PUNJAB, CHANDIGARH. 

M.R.No.77 of 1988-89

Madan Gopal son of Mangal Shah resident of Fatehpur Rajputan Tehsil Patiala through his Mukhtiar-I-Khas Hari Kishan son of Pt. Dina Nath of Patiala.

                                                                                                            …Petitioner.

                                                                                                                   Versus

1.Shivinder Singh son of Harnam Singh residentof H.No.225/4 Pili Sarak, near Ganda NalaBridge, Ghas Mandi, Patiala.

2.Dildar Singh son of Jagat Singh son of Jasahar Singh of Fatehpur Rajputan, Tehsil Patiala.

3.The State of Punjab through the Chief Settlement commissioner(Deputy Commissioner) Patiala.

4.The Settlement Commissioner Patiala Sub Division, Patiala.

5.Tehsildar(Sales)-cum-Managing Officer, Patiala.

                                                                                                           …Respondents. 

Present: During the arguments on 30.11.99. 

             Sh. Hari Kishan in person on behalf of Madan Gopal, petitioner.

            Sh. Vivek Sharma,Advocate, proxy for Sh.G.S.Nagra,Advocate, arguments     for the respondents.

                                                                                                             ORDER

1This is petition u/s 33 read with section 24(iv) of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954 against the order of the Chief Settlement Commissioner (Deputy Commissioner) Patiala dated 1.12.1988.

2.The petitioner has stated that he was allotted land measuring 6 kanals comprising of Khasra No.48//1/2(4-0), 10/1(2-0) in the revenue estate Fetehpur Rajputan, Tehsil and District Patiala on 17.10.67 by the Tehsildar (Sales)-cum-Managing Officer, Patiala by `Parcha` claim and `parcha` allotment in lieu of the claim for the land left by him in Pakistan.

 It is also stated that due to unavoidable circumstances and because of the misfortune of the petitioner, he could not get the possession of the land in dispute allotted to him despite his best efforts as the land was under unauthorised occupation of one Sh.Shiv Das Singh whose allotment was cancelled being in excess of his claim.  In order to retain his possession on the land Shiv Das Singh kept on filing one petition or the other and ultimately the authorities had to order that the possession be got delivered to the petitioner with the help of the police, even then possession could not be delivered. 

  It has further been stated that one Shivinder Singh, respondent No.1, who was a vendee from one Wadhawa Singh (deceased allottee) of village Jaikhar, Tehsil Samana, District Patiala who was to get the allotment gave false information to the authorities concerned and procured a false report from the clerk of the Rehabilitation Department in connivance with the authorities that the petitioner was not taking the possession of the land intentionally inspite of the fact that it had been allotted to him since long.  In the official note dated 19.5.86 it was observed that this land may be allotted to Respondent No.1, which was approved by the Tehsildar (Sales)-cum-Managing Officer, Patiala.  On the same day a Parchi Allotment with regard to the land in dispute was issued in favour of the Shivinder Singh, Respondent No.1. 

 It is further alleged by the petitioner that Shivinder Singh Respondent No.1 transferred the land in dispute to Dildar Singh respondent No.2 on 10.6.86, i.e., within less than a month without even taking the possession of the land in dispute.

The petitioner continues to allege that Wadhawa Singh on whose behalf Respondent No. I is claiming allotment being vendee of his claim, was sitting allottee of Tehsil Samana who had died since long.  Whereas the Punjab Government vide its letter No.1537 (12543/H-7), dated 30.9.87 addressed to the Tehsildar (Sales) issued instructions to the effect that unless the legal heirs of the deceased allottee come forward to secure alternative allotment, no allotment in the name of the vendees on the basis of sale deed could be made. 

The plea of the petitioner is that the authorities below have not considered the matter and important aspects of the case that the Mukhtiarnama, if any, in favour of Shivinder Singh ceased to operate on the death of Wadhawa Singh who died much earlier to the allotment.  There was no Mukhtiarnama in favour of Shivinder Singh respondent No.1 by the legal heirs of Wadhawa Singh (deceased).  Apart from this the legal heirs of Wadhawa Singh had themselves made application to the authorities concerned i.e. Tehsildar (Sales) that the allotment may be made in their name and not in the name of Respondent No.1.  

Hari Kishan on behalf of Madan Gopal petitioner argued that the allotment had been made in the name of Shivinder Singh who is neither claimant nor heir of Wadhawa Singh and had no concern with the allotment/claim.  According to him even for the sake of argument if it is admitted that Shivinder Singh, Respondent No.1 was a vendee from the claimant (Wadhawa Singh) even then the allotment could not be made in his name.  He further argued that Shivinder Singh son of Harnam Singh and Avtar Singh son of Sachet Singh purchased some other land from Wadhawa Singh in equal shares in village Jaikher, Tehsil  Samana as is evident from the copy of the sale deed dated 12.6.1970 produced by Shivinder Singh, and if at all the land was to be allotted to the vendees then it should be allotted in the name of both the vendees and not in the name of Shivinder Singh alone in lieu of the land purchased by them which was cancelled.

3.The counsel for Dildar Singh, Respondent No.2 by filing written arguments argued that Madan Gopal has given General Power of Attorney dated 26.2.1985 to Harmail Singh alias Harnek Singh who further has given Special Power of Attorney dated 2.7.1986 to Hari Kishan.Thus Hari Kishan has no locus standi to file this petition on behalf of Madan Gopal.He further argues that the Respondent No.2 (Dildar Singh) made repeated request tothis Court that Madan Gopal petitioner may be directed to appear in person.Despite the orders having been passed by this Court,Hari Kishan has failed to produce Madan Gopal petitioner.The Respondent No.2 Dildar Singh purchased the land in dispute measuring 6K-0M on 10.6.86 vide registered sale deed from Shivinder Singh for Rs.18,000/- and the mutation has been sanctioned in his favour.He also seeks protection under section 41 of the Transfer of Properties Act.

4.I have heard the parties and gone through the record placed on the file.The petitioner (Madan Gopal) was allotted land measuring 6K-0M comprising of Khasra No. 48//1/2(4-0), 10/2(2-0) in the revenue estate of Fatehpur Rajputan Tehsil and District Patiala, but he could not take possession of the land for a continuous period of 18 years.The present revision petition has been filed by Sh.Hari Kishan who is Mukhtiar-I-Khas of Harmail Singh who allegedly got the General Power of Attorney from Madan Gopal son of Mangal Shah.During the course of hearing Hari Kishan was givenmany opportunities to produce Sh. Madan Gopal.Inspite of repeated orders having been passed Sh. Hari Kishan failed to produce Madan Gopal.Therefore, it can be easily inferred that Sh.Madan Gopalpetitioner is not interested in the case.Sh. Hari Kishan has taken Power of Attorney from one Harmail Singh @ Harnaik Singh on 27.1.1986.As Sh. Hari Kishan has no Power of Attorney fromSh.Madan Gopal, the original allottee, therefore, he has no right to file this revision petition.The case of Madan Gopal has rightly been dismissed by the lower courts and there is no occasion to interfere with these orders under Section 33 of the Displaced Persons(C & R) Act,1954 and the present petition is hereby dismissed.

5.So far as the allotment of land to Shivinder Singh is concerned, this is also liable to cancellation andit is found that the allotment of land to the tune of 6 SA-4 units to Wadhawa Singh in village Jaikhar was cancelled by the chief Settlement Commissioner vide his order dated 12.1.1975, and he was to be given alternative allotment in lieu of this cancelled land.The case remained pending with the Tehsildar(Sales), Patiala.Sh.Wadhawa Singh was making request for the allotment and after his death on 20.9.1978 his sons Man Singh, Balkar Singh, Sucha Singh, Tehal Singh were pursuing their case for allotment.The Tehsildar(Sales), Patiala submitted the case to Deputy Secretary Rehabilitation, Jalandhar vide his note dated 5.5.1982 in which he has stated that since the reversioners of Wadhawa Singh were not coming forward to pursue their case, Shivinder Singh son of Harnam Singh and Avtar Singh son of Suchet Singh who are vendees of Wadhawa Singh wanted the land of Wadhawa Singh son of Jawahar Singh to be allotted in their name.He also pointed out that there was no precedent where allotment could be made directly in the name of vendee and that it had to be done in favour of the deceased allottee who was owner in Pakistan.

The Deputy Secretary to Govt., Punjab, Rehabilitation Department, Jalandhar vide his Memo. No.1537/12543/G7, dated Jalandhar 30.9.1982 informed the Tehsildar that unless the legal heirs of the deceased allottee come forward to secure alternative allotment, no allotment in the name of the vendee on the basis of the sale deed could be made.  Accordingly, the case received with his note No.542/TSP dated 26.7.1982, was returned.  He desired that as and when the legal heirs came and demanded alternative allotment,  the case may be sent for clearance. 

Tehsildar(Sales) Patiala again submitted the case to Deputy Secretary Rehabilitation, Punjab, Mohali.  The Deputy Secretary Rehabilitation Department vide his Memo.No. (1581)/16694/dated 6.9.83, while changing his earlier view informed the Tehsildar (Sales) Patiala that Shri Shavinder Singh vendee from Shri Wadhawa Singh son of Jawahar Singh may be provided alternative allotment to the tune of 6-4 SAs  in village Jaikhar or in some nearby village, according to rules.  The reason for this somersault are not intelligible. 

Evidently, the Deputy Secretary Rehabilitation seriously erred in holding that Shivinder Singh, vendee of Wadhawa Singh may be provided alternative allotment to the tune of 6.4 SAs  As per entitlement of allotment of land was to be made in favour of Wadhawa Singh (deceased allottee) who was owner in Pakistan and not in the name of any vendee.  Even otherwise there was no absolutely occasion to make allotment in the name of only one of the vendees .                                         
On the basis of the order of Deputy Secretary Rehabilitation Shivinder Singh managed to get the allotment in village Budanpur, Tehsil Patiala of land bearing khasra No. 26/2/1min measuring 1K-8M of the value of 0.2-3/4 unit on 9.5.56 and in village Shadipur Tehsil Patiala bearing Khasra Nos. 14//17/2/1(0-8), 25//10/3min(1-18), 29//13/1/2(0-15), 60//21(0-6), 38min(12-12) total measuring 15K-19M of standard value of 1 standard acre and in village Fatehpur Rajputan Tehsil Patiala 48//1/2(4K-0M), 10/1(2K-0M) total measuring 6K-0M of 0.6 Std. Units on 19.5.1986.

 The present case deals with the allotment of land made to Shivinder Singh in village Fatehpur Rajputan, and the same is hereby cancelled.  The Deputy Commissioner, Patiala-cum-Chief Settlement Commissioner is further directed to take up the case for cancellation of allotment in the remaining two villages mentioned above and in other villages wherever the allotment of the remaining area to the tune of 4 Std. As –11-1/4 units was made after giving due notice to the affected parties. 

                        Announced. 

                                                               (Shyama Mann)

Chandigarh, dated                              Financial Commissioner Revenue,

The 14th  Dec.,1999.                            Punjab.