Allotment case of Hazura Singh

GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE & REHABILITATION (POLICY & LEGAL BRANCH)

F.No.18/3/2001/PL-3/

                                                                                   ORDER

The matter herein relates to the additional allotment in the name of Hazura Singh son of Kaku Singh. The facts of this case are that an application was filed by one Gurdeep Singh claiming to the General Attorney of Gindi alias Surjit Kaur daughter of Kaku Singh, Jito, Rani, Binder and Sohan Singh, Mohan Singh sons and daughters of Jai Kaur alias Labh Kaur daughter of Kaku Singh who has claimed as successor of Hazura Singh. This application was filed on 26.6.96 before the Managing Officer, HQ. It was claimed in this application that said Hazura Singh had been allotted land measuring 166 kanals in village Nathalwala in lieu of land abandoned by him in village Ghorianwala, Tehsil Machenabad District Bahawalpur. Out of this allotment entire area except 72K-3M was cancelled and allotted to other people. In lieu of this cancellation no allotment had been made in favour of either Hazura Singh or his legal heirs. Therefore, this deficiency should be made good. This application was decided by Managing Officer Sh.Hirdayjit Singh on 30.6.98 holding Hazura Singh eligible for additional area of 3 SAs 15½ units in lieu of area cancelled against his name and it was further ordered that the case be sent to the Policy Branch for clearance. For some reasons the matter was never referred to the Policy Branch and the file was retained in the Managing Officer’s record. Ultimately the file was located by the present Managing Officer who discovered number of irregularities in the decision of the case which necessitated intervention u/s 33 of the Displaced Persons (C & R) Act. In particular it was found that the entire claim had been initiated and pursued by one Gurdeep Singh son of Pritam Singh who claimed to be General Attorney of various legal heirs of Hazura Singh. At no stage in the entire proceedings lasting over more than two years did any of the so called successors of Hazura Singh either present themselves or were called in connection with this case. Gurdeep Singh was the only one who appeared before the Managing Officer. The Managing Officer records him as the applicant!

2. Gurdeep Singh was summoned to appear before me on 23.4.2001 and his statement was duly recorded on the said date. On the basis of the statement of Gurdeep Singh and the perusal of the record it has been found that the claim is without substance and there is no merit in the order of the Managing Officer.

This is a fit case for setting aside this order. Very glaring irregularities and discrepancies have been observed in this claim and also in the manner the Managing Officer HQ handled the same. Some of these are listed below:-

1. The Managing Officer made no effort to determine the LRs of Hazura Singh as required u/s 9 of the Displaced Persons (C & R) Act and chose to rely implicitly on the statement of Gurdeep Singh the attorney of the alleged heirs of Hazura Singh. There is contradiction in the facts as stated by Gurdeep Singh and as narrated in the documents presented by Gurdeep Singh. There are also gaps in relation to information in these documents. Some illustrations are as under:-

1. Gurdeep Singh claims that Hazura Singh died issueless and also states that he had two brothers Gurbax Singh and Gulab Singh and two sisters Smt. Jai Kaur and Gindi. On the other hand both the Power of Attorney and the affidavit of the alleged successors dated 4.6.96 states that Gurbax Singh and Gulab Singh are sons of Nanu Singh.
2. The General Power of attorney and affidavit dated 4.6.96 placed on file have been signed by Gindi, Jeeto, Rani, Binder, Sohan Singh and Mohan Singh in the application presented by Gurdeep Singh on 30.9.96 there is no mention of Mohan Singh.
3. The General Power of Attorney does not mention the relationship of claiming successors with the deceased persons who were further projected as successors of the said Hazura Singh and this has been left to the imagination of the reader.
4. The non application of mind on the part of the Managing Officer is glaringly visible in the first sentence of his order dated 30.6.98, where Gurdeep Singh has been mentioned as General Attorney of Hazura Singh. However, Gurdeep Singh projects himself as attorney of Hazura Singh’s successors.

1. In his application dated 30.9.96 Gurdeep Singh has stated that of the 166 kanals area allotted to Hazura Singh the entire area being 72K-3M was given to three allottees he has not mentioned about any area being cancelled from Hazura Singh’s name. The Managing Officer has in para 2 of his order dated 30.6.98 mentioned the cancellation of certain area vide orders dated 2.2.59 and 30.6.64 but has cleverly omitted to mention that the cancellation had been made as the allotted area was in excess of the permissible area.
2. The claim was seriously affected by laches. Yet the Managing Officer did not find anything wrong with entertaining the application filed after more than 30 years of the last order and that too through an attorney.
3. He made no inquiries on the subject. Gurdeep Singh now admits in his statement recorded on 23.4.2001 that no appeal was filed. As per own admission of Gurdeep Singh Hazura Singh died in 1952-53. The Hindu Succession Act, 1956 was not in operation at that time. The Tehsildar-cum-Managing Officer failed to notice that the projected claim sought to devolve the inheritance of Hazura Singh on the successors of his sisters when his alleged brothers were still reportedly alive at the time of his death.

3. It is a matter of some concern that the file of the Managing Officer which was retrieved from the Record Room at Jalandhar carries only the order of cancellation dated 2.2.1959 whereas admittedly there is another order of cancellation dated 30.6.64 in relation to 4 SA-4½ units, a photo copy of which is available at page 68 of the Managing Officer’s file. This raises a suspicion that this order may have been removed from the file surreptitiously, otherwise there is no valid reasons why this order should not figure on the main allotment file. Again, the original file carries only 29 pages, the page number on the photostat copy of the order dated 30.6.64 appears tampered with. In any case, it appears that the Managing Officer was forced to take cognizance of the two cancellation orders in the wake of the report of the Patwari dated 3.12.97. Fortunately both the cancellation orders had been addressed also to the Deputy Commissioner, Bathinda, Tehsildar, Faridkot and the Tehsildar (Sales), Bathinda. The Managing Officer has given no valid reasons for ignoring these cancellation orders and relying on the incomplete report prepared by Kuldip Singh, Senior Assistant who showed Hazura Singh has holding excess allotment but omitted to mention the two cancellation orders and the reasons for cancellation.

4. In view of the aforementioned discussion the claim is found to be frivolous and devoid of merit and is accordingly set aside. It has quite evident been masterminded by Gurdeep Singh son of Pritam Singh in collusion with the various revenue functionaries. Gurdeep Singh has been found to be involved in creation of another claim of a similar nature pertaining to one Wasakha Singh son of Sunder Singh which was rejected on 30.3.2001 having been found fraudulent and without merit. The modus operandi in that case was similar to the present case. It is found that Gurdeep Singh is an employee of the Punjab State Tubewell Corporation. His association as a public servant with such fraudulent claims is a matter of grave concern.

To be communicated through registered post as also through process.

(SHYAMA MANN)

Chandigarh, dated Financial Commissioner Revenue,

The 11^th May, 2001 Punjab.