IN THE COURT OF SMT. AGYA RAJINDER SINGH, IAS, SPECIAL SECRETARY-CUM-CHIEF SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER, REVENUE & REHABILITATION DEPARTMENT, PUNJAB, CHANDIGARH
Revision Petition No. 6/GSP/1997/CSC
Mehnga Singh son of Sh. Narain Singh, Successor-in-Interest of Lachhman Shukal son of Jiwan Singh resident of village Dhariwal Kalan, Tehsil and District Gurdaspur.
1.Settlement Commissioner, Revenue & Rehabilitation Department, Punjab, Chandigarh.
2.Tehsildar (Headquarters)-cum-Managing Officer, Punjab, Chandigarh.
3.Sh. Baldev Singh son of Inder Singh
4.Sh. Hari Singh son of Piara Singh
5.Smt. Swaran Kaur w/o Bhag Singh.
All resident of village Kamalpur, Tehsil Balachaur, District Hoshiarpur.
6.Gurdip Kaur w/o Chanan Singh
7.Jasbir Kaur d/o Chanan Singh
(LRs of deceased Chanan Singh son of Teha Singh) R/o Gilmanj, Tehsil and Distt. Gurdaspur.
Present :- Sh. Som Nath Saini, Advocate alongwith petitioner Sh. Mehnga Singh.
This revision petition has been filed by Sh. Mehnga Singh son of Sh. Narain Singh, claiming to be successor-in-Interest of Sh. Lachhman Shukal son of Jiwan Singh, resident of village Dhariwal Kalan, Tehsil Gurdaspur against the order dated 6.5.1991 of the Settlement Commissioner whereby he had dismissed the appeal against the order dated 8.12.1989 of the Tehsildar (Headquarters)-cum-Managing Officer cancelling the allotment in favour of Smt. Rukmani Devi wife of Sh. Jiwan Singh mentioned above.
2. Earlier the petitioner (Sh. Mehnga Singh) had filed an appeal as attorney of Sh. Lachhman Shukal against the same (impugned) order of Settlement Commissioner to the Chief Settlement Commissioner who rejected the same vide his orders dated 28.6.1993. Further appeal filed him to the Financial Commissioner (Revenue) was rejected vide his orders dated 14.11.1995. This was followed by rejection of a Misc. application to Financial Commissioner (Revenue) for fresh decision on his appeal, vide Financial Commissioner (Revenue) orders dated 19.12.1995. Aggrieved by orders dated 14.11.95 and 19.12.95 of Financial Commissioner Revenue, order dated 28.6.93 of Chief Settlement Commissioner, orders dated 6.5.91 and 14.12.87 of Settlement Commissioner and order dated 8.12.89 of Tehsildar (Headquarters)-cum-Managing Officer, the petitioner filed a Civil Writ Petition No. 1267 of 1996 in the Punjab & Haryana High Court which was dismissed vide Court orders dated 5.11.1996 mainly for the reason that he could not produce Sh. Lachhman Shukal in the High Court as he could not do so before the Financial Commissioner (Revenue). The High Court further observed: -
"It has been brought to the notice of this Court that the petitioner has also applied for the grant of Succession Certificate. Nothing observed above shall, however, prejudice the case of the petitioner for the grant of Succession Certificate."
Against above decision of the High Court, the petitioner filed SLP (No.3048 of 1997) in the Supreme Court of India which was dismissed with the following orders dated 14.2.1997 :-
"We have asked learned counsel for the petitioner whether he is claiming to represent Lachhman on the basis of the power of attorney alleged to have been given by Lachhman in his favour or upon the basis of the Will alleged to have been made by Lachhman. Learned counsel states that the petitioner does not know whether Lachhman is alive or dead. The SLP is dismissed."
Learned counsel for the petitioner Sh. Som Nath Saini while pleading maintainability of the revision petition urged that he has obtained Succession Certificate of Property of Sh. Lachhman Shukal in his favour. In this regard he referred to the order dated 30.8.1997 of Additional Civil Judge, Gurdaspur, enclosed as Annexure P-1 with the revision petition. A bare and cursory perusal of the aforementioned order reveals that it is a Succession Certificate in favour of the petitioner only in respect of amount (Rs. 20,282/- + interest) in a Savings Bank Account No. 45352 in State Bank of India, Hall Bazzar, Amritsar of Sh. Lachhman Shukal. This Succession Certificate has no relevancy to the claim of the petitioner as Successor-in-Interest of Sh. Lachhman Shukal in respect of the land in dispute, reference to which was made by the Hon'ble High Court in orders of the writ petition No. 1267 of 1996.
Besides with rejection of appeals against the impugned orders of Settlement Commissioner, and subsequent orders of Chief Settlement Commissioner, of Financial Commissioner (Revenue) and of Hon'ble High Court, the impugned order has attained finality.
After careful consideration of the revision petition, the record, the arguments of learned counsel for the petitioner and for reasons given above, I am of the opinion that the present revision petition is not maintainable. The petitioner may seek remedy before the appropriate authority, if so advised.
(Agya Rajinder Singh)
Chandigarh, Chief Settlement Commissioner,
Dated 14.7.1998. Revenue & Rehabilitation Deptt.,