IN THE COURT OF MRS. SHYAMA MANN,IAS, FINANCIAL COMMISSIONER REVENUE, PUNJAB, CHANDIGARH.
M.R.No. 18 of 1997-98
1.Som Parkash c/o Om Parkash son of Tarlok Chand Nanda resident of 14-B/4, Boat Club Road, Pune-1 through Dharam Chand son of Sanwla Ram-General Attorney.
2.Inder Parkash (deceased) son of Tarlok Chand Nanda resident of 14-B/4 Boat Club Road, Pune-1 through Dharam Chand son of Sanwla Ram-Legal Representative.
2.Data Ram son of Khazana resident of village JandiTehsil Balachaur, District Nawanshahr.
Present during: Sh. H.S.Narula, Advocate, counsel for the petitioners.
1. This petition u/s 33 of the Displaced Persons (C & R) Act,1954 is directed against the order dated 19.8.1994 of chief settlement Commissioner read with order dated 20.6.97 of commissioner, Jalandhar whereby allotment made to the petitioners vide order dated 24.2.93 of Tehsildar-cum-Managing Officer, Balachaur was cancelled.
2.The brief facts of the case brought on record are that Tehsildar (Sales)-cum-Managing Officer, Balachaur allotted land in villages Natha Nangal/398, Balewal/406 in favour of Inder Parkash and Som Parkash sons of Tarlok Chand, petitioners vide his order dated 24.2.93. One Datta Ram son of Khazana resident of village Jandi Tehsil Balachaur impleaded as respondent No.2 in the present petition filed an appeal before the Sales Commissioner that Inder Parkash and Som Parkash(petitioners herein) are fictitious persons and land should not be allotted in their favour. The Tehsildar(Sales), Balachaur also made a Suo-moto reference to the Settlement Commissioner and S.D.M., Balachaur vide his Endst.No.349/Sales dated 7.9.1993 for the cancellation of the allotment made by the Tehsildar(Sales).
3.The Sales Commissioner sent notice to the petitioners Inder Parkash and Som Parkash.Despite registered notices they did not turn up before the S.D.M.-cum-Settlement Commissioner(Sales), Balachaur.
The S.D.M.-cum-Sales Commissioner, Balachaur presumed that the Power of Attorneys purporting to have been given by these two persons were bogus and endorsed the Suo-moto reference and recommended to the Chief Sales Commissioner-cum-Deputy Commissioner vide his Memo.No.349 dated 9.3.1994 for the cancellation of the allotment made in the name of the petitioners by the Tehsildar(Sales), Balachaur vide his order dated 24.2.1993. After receiving the Suo-moto reference the Chief Sales Commissioner-cum-Deputy Commissioner, Hoshiarpur issued notice to Inder Parkash and Som Parkash and Mustri Munadi was also made. But nobody responded to appear in the court of Chief Settlement Commissioner. The Chief Settlement He accepted the aforesaid suo-motu reference made by the Sales Commissioner-cum-SDM, Balachaur and cancelled the allotment vide his order dated 19.8.1994. The Commissioner, Jalandhar Division also dismissed the petition being not maintainable before him vide order dated 20.6.1997 and advised the petitioners to approach the Financial Commissioner Revenue. Hence the present petition u/s 33 of the Displaced Persons (C&R) Act, 1954.
4.I have heard the arguments of the counsel for the parties and gone through the record. It is noticed that on representation of one Sh.R.P.Puri allegedly, General Attorney of Som Parkash and Inder Parkash, a duplicate Goshwara was prepared for allotment of land to the tune of 6 SAs-15-1/2 units each in the name of Som Paraksh @ Om Parkash and Inder Parkash sons of Tarlok Chand. This Goshwara was sent to Tehsildar(Sales)-cum-Managing Officer, Patiala on 16.2.1981. Under the orders dated 25.2.87 of revenue Minister, Punjab, and endorsed by the Deputy Commissioner, Patiala the Tehsildar (Sales)-cum-Managing Officer, Patiala vide Memo.No.21 dated 30.3.1987 sent the file containing the duplicate Goshwara to SDM, Balachaur for allotment of land to the petitioners.
As per photo copies of the Powers of Attorney available on the record Som Parkash son of Tarlok Chand further purportingly appointed Mansa Ram son of Amar Chand resident of village Gungri Tehsil Balachaur as his General Attorney vide registered deed dated 7th May,1987. Inder Parkash son of Tarlok Chand purportingly appointed Daman Kumar son of Gian Chand son of Gopi Ram resident of Balachaur as General Attorney. The above noted General Powers of Attorney were got registered at Chandigarh on 7.5.1987. Sh. R.P.Puri was one of the witnesses of both these documents. Again Som Parkash purportingly appointed Dharam Chand son of Sanwla Ram resident of Lahori Gate, Patiala as General Attorney and this power of Attorney was got registered at Patiala on 18.2.1994. The present revision petition hence filed by Sh. Dharam Chand Attorney on behalf of Som Parkash, and Inder Parkash (deceased ) son of Tarlok Chand, without any authority from the L.Rs of Inder Parkash, petitioner.
5. I have gone through the copies of the pedigree table and jamabandi for the year 1946-47 of village Amnabad District Gujranwala. As per entry in the jamabandi Sh.Tarlok Chand was owner of the land in village Amnabad. The names of Kishore Chand, Om Parkash, Inder Rakha and Jagat Mohan have been added with blue ink below the name of Tarlok Chand in Shajra Nasab as his sons. This entry has clearly been made afterwards in the pedigree table attached with the jamabandi. In the jamabandi the name of Tarlok Chand exists in the ownership Column against Khewat No.32. Names of Kishore Chand, Om Parkash, Inder Rakha and Jagat Mohan sons of Tarlok Chand have been entered with lead pencil in Column No.1,2,3. This entry which has also been made afterwards clearly shows that Sh.Tarlok Chand was owner of the land at the time of partition of the country.
The present Goshwara has been prepared in the name of Som Parkash @ Om Parkash son of Tarlok Chand and Inder Parkash son of Tarlok Chand. The names of Kishore Chand and Jagat Mohan are conspicuously missing in this goshwara, as already stated the names of Kishore Chand, Om Parkash, Inder Rakha and Jagat Mohan were entered later on as sons of Tarlok Chand. In fact the Goshwara should have been issued/prepared in the name of Tarlok Chand only as per entry in the jamabandi at the time of partition. The present petition was filed by Som Parkash @ Om Parkash son of Tarlok Chand and Inder Parkash (deceased) son of Tarlok Chand through Dharam Chand son of Sanwla Ram as his legal representative. There is no application on the record to seek permission of the court to implead the legal representatives of Inder Parkash deceased. Sh.Dharam Chand has claimed himself to be the legal representative of Inder Parkash (deceased) without indicating his relationship with him.
6.It is significant to note that the petitioners did not present themselves personally before the Settlement Commissioner and the Chief Settlement commissioner, despite registered notices issued to them followed by proclamation. All this gave rise to suspicion, given the credential of the petitioners. Accordingly I also directed the counsel for the petitioners to produce the original claimants or their legal representatives in the court vide my order dated 27.7.1999 for 7.9.1999. The case was then repeatedly adjourned for 5.10.1999, 7.12.1999 and 21.12.1999. But absolutely no effort was discernible on the part of counsel for the petitioner to secure the presence of the original claimants or their legal representatives before this court to dispel the suspicion generated on account of their complete absence from the proceedings before all the courts dealing with the matter followed by the repetition of that conduct before this court. The non-appearance of the original claimants despite numerous opportunities leads to inescapable conclusion that the parties presenting their claim are bogus and non existent. The genuineness and authenticity of Power of Attorney dated 7.5.1987 and 18.2.1994 referred to above (unattested photo copies of which are placed on record is referred to above) is shrouded in complete suspicion. It is cardinal principle of justice that a party who sets up a claim should satisfy the concerned Court regarding its bonafides to the complete satisfaction of the Court. Here in no body bothered to establish their bonafide to substantiate the claim.
7.In the result I am of the opinion that it is clear that this claim has been set up by bogus and fictitious persons and the allotment made by Tehsildar Sales-cum-Managing Officer, Balachaur on 24.2.1993 was justifiably cancelled by the Chief Sales commissioner-cum-Deputy Commissioner, Hoshiarpur vide his order dated 19.8.1994. There is no merit in this revision petition and the same is dismissed.
It follows that the allotment made in the name of Som Parkash @ Om Parkash, Inder Parkash in villages Badi, Siana, Mehndipur, Fatehpur, Tonsa and Raipur or in any other village in pursuance of Goshwara mentioned above also suffers from the same illegality. Therefore, the same be also cancelled by the Deputy Commissioner, Nawanshahr-cum-Chief Settlement Commissioner after giving reasonable opportunities to the affected persons.
8. During the course of hearing on 6.7.99, Shri R.S.Chauhan, Advocate submitted an application under Order 1 Rule 10 with Section 151 of CPC for impleading the applicants, namely Hans Raj, Sant Ram, Achhar Dass, Darshna Devi and Subhash Chand all residents of village Balewal as respondents. It has been stated in the said application that land measuring 57K-13M situated in village Balewal, tehsil Balachaur, district Nawanshahar was put to auction on 10.5.1982. The sale was not confirmed because the land was ‘Ghairmumkin’ as per the Government Notification dated 7.7.1981. Rather the allotment to the applicants was cancelled. It has been further stated that aggrieved with the said cancellation, the deponent preferred a petition before the Commissioner, Jalandhar Division against the order of the C.S.C. dated 23.8.89 and the petition was accepted by the Commissioner vide his order dated 4.5.88 confirming the sale in favour of the applicants on the basis of a notification of the State Government dated 10.3.1989 vide which it was held that ‘Gair Mumkin’ land can be sold. The said order dated 4.5.98 had attained finality as the same was not challenged before any higher authority. Since the applicants are seeking allotment of the very same land, interest of applicant Sant Ram is directly and substantially involved . Although the accompanying affidavit has been sworn by only Sant Ram, the Vakalatnama has been signed by certain individuals namely Achhar Dass, Darshna Devi, Subhash Chand and thumb marked by Hans Raj. Since the limited issue here is allotment to Som Parkash , Om Parkash, the interest of these applicants are not in jeopardized in any manner as no adverse order is being passed against their interest. Therefore, they are not entitled to be impleaded as respondents in these proceedings. Hence, the application is dismissed. However, this will not be construed as confirmation of the order dated 4.5.1998 of the Commissioner, Jalandhar Division.
Chandigarh, dated Financial Commissioner Revenue,
The 21th Dec.,1999. Punjab.