Punjab-Haryana High Court
Mehal Singh vs State Of Haryana And Ors. on 12 January, 2005
Equivalent citations: (2005)140PLR720
Author: Ashutosh Mohunta
Bench: Ashutosh Mohunta
JUDGMENT Ashutosh Mohunta, J.
1. The prayer made in this petition under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India is for the issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for the quashment of the order dated 28.2.2002 (Annexure P-9) passed by the Chief Settlement Commissioner, Haryana (Respondent No. 2) and the subsequent order dated 6.9.2002 (Annexure P-11) passed by the Commissioner arid Secretary to Government of Haryana, Rehabilitation Department (Respondent No. 1) vide which the allotment of the land made in favour of Gujjar Singh deceased, father of the petitioner, has been cancelled. Prayer has further been made for issuance of direction to the respondents to allot the land in the name of the petitioner, the allotment of which had been cancelled earlier by the authorities concerned. In lieu of the land abandoned by his deceased father Gujjar Singh in Pakistan at the time of partition of the country.
2. According to the petitioner, his father Gujjar Singh was a displaced person and he was holding agricultural land in village Mallowal, Tehsil Nankana Sahib, District Sheik-hupura, and also in village Badhana in District Lahore. Both these villages are now in Pakistan. His father was allotted land measuring 82 Standard Acres 10-1/4 Units in lieu of the land abandoned by him while migrating to India due to communal disturbances. The said land was allotted to Gujjar Singh in village Mardamheri in Kaithal District which then was in District Karnal. The possession of the land was taken on 5.10.1950 and entry to this effect was also recorded in "Fard Takseern Arazi Matrooka". On the complaint made by Jagir Singh and Udham Singh, sons of Gurmukh Singh in the year 1952, the case was reopened and the Assistant Registrar cum Managing Officer, Land Claims Organisation (Respondent No. 4) passed the cancellation order dated 28.5.1953 canceling the land measuring 73 Standard Acres 14-1/4 Units which was found to have been wrongly allotted to Gujjar Singh as due to clerical mistake, land measuring 297 Acres 1 Kanal 12 Marias belonging to one Gurdial Singh was shown in Chhant Jamabandi in the name of Gujjar Singh. Against the order of cancellation dated 28.5.1953, the present petitioner filed application before the Assistant Registrar for restoration of the land to the extent of 73 Standard Acres 14-1/4 Units on 14.9.1971. However, the Assistant Registrar directed the petitioner to approach the appropriate authority against the order of cancellation and, accordingly, dismissed the application. Consequently, the petitioner filed appeal before the Additional Settlement Commissioner (Sales) cum Assistant Registrar, Haryana (Respondent No. 3, who dismissed the appeal vide order dated 12.6.1973 on the ground that the appeal is barred by time. The petitioner then approached the Chief Settlement Commissioner, Haryana, after obtaining certified copies of the relevant records from Pakistan. The Chief Settlement Commissioner, Haryana vide his order dated 28.9.1993 doubted the authenticity of the revenue record produced by the petitioner and dismissed the application filed by him. The application for review of the order dated 28.9.1993 was also dismissed by the Chief Settlement Commissioner on 21.12.1993. Thereafter, the petitioner filed revision petition under Section 33 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954 (for short "the Act"). The revision filed by the petitioner was also dismissed by the Financial Commissioner in limine on 26.4.1994 (Annexure P-3) on the ground that the revision petition was filed after a gap of 20 years and, consequently, it was held to be barred by time. Then the petitioner approached this Court by filing Civil Writ Petition No. 9602 of 1994 in order to get the orders passed by the Revenue Authorities cancelled. This Court vide judgment dated 3.4.1997 (Annexure P-5) remanded the matter to the Chief Settlement Commissioner, Haryana, to consider the claim of the petitioner afresh in the light of the material to be placed before him by the petitioner. After examining the matter on remand, the Chief Settlement Commissioner declined the prayer for rejection of the cancellation order dated 28.5.1953 passed by the Assistant Registrar (Land Claims) vide order dated 25.8.1998 (Annexure P-6). It was held by the Chief Settlement Commissioner that the description regarding soil of the land and the area mentioned in the Jamabandi for the year 1944-45 produced by the petitioner did not tally with the kind of soil mentioned in the Parcha of Claim relating to village Bhadana (now in Pakistan) as submitted by Gujjar Singh, deceased father of the petitioner. It was further found by the Chief Settlement Commissioner that Khasra No. 186, 4085, 4088 and 4090 had been mentioned twice in the Jama Bandi of 1944-45, produced by Mehal Singh petitioner. Not only this, the area of the Khasra Numbers also differed. Similarly some other contradictions were noticed by the Chief Settlement Commissioner. Further it was held by the Chief Settlement Commissioner in his order dated 25.8.1998 that the Khasra Nos. mentioned in the Jamabandi for the year 1944-45 did not find mention in the Jamabandi for the year 1946-47, which was submitted by the predecessor-in- interest of the petitioner i.e., his father Gujjar Singh. Against the order dated 25.8.1998 passed by the Chief Settlement Commissioner, the petitioner filed a revision petition before the Financial Commissioner and Secretary (Rehabilitation), Haryana who vide order dated 26.9.2000 again remanded the case to the Chief Settlement Commissioner after raising following queries:-
(i) Keeping in view the detailed procedure laid down for examining a claim before actual allotment of evacuee land, can a mistake like this happen where the land belonging to someone else is incorporated in the holding of another person without being detected at any stage. Associated with this is the other issue, whether original allotment was correctly made on the basis of official revenue record, but the same was tampered later on.
(ii) What happened to the Khasra numbers shown to be in the ownership of the father of the petitioner in village Badhana till 1944-45, as per Jamabandi produced by the petitioner? In whose ownership these numbers are shown in the Jamabandis of 1946-47, officially received from Pakistan, and when did the change take place?
(iii) The present age of the petitioner may be verified, so that reasonable presumption could be drawn about the statement said to have been made by the petitioner before the Assistant Registrar, prior to cancellation of allotment. Parties are directed to appear before the Chief Settlement Commissioner on 18.10.2000.
3. With regard to the first query, the Chief Settlement Commissioner obtained detailed report from the Assistant Registrar, who vide his report dated 29.10.2001 submitted as under:-
"The holding of some other persons was incorporated in the Parcha Claim of Shri Gujjar Singh son of Teja Singh wrongly and this mistake was detected in 1953 on a complaint filed by Shri Jagir Singh etc. and the mistake was corrected by cancellation of excess allotment. The mistake can occur at any time and it can even slip the notice of checking authorities because at the relevant time a huge population has migrated to India and allotment were to be made in a time bound periods. Thus, due to rush of work of due to inadvertent mistake the incorporated in the Parcha Claim of Shri Gujjar Singh which resulted in excess allotment. In the "Parcha Claim" of village Badana he is shown to have filed claim of only 3 Acres 0 Kanals 4 Marias which include 1 Acre 4 Kanals 4 Marias in his exclusive ownership and 1 Acres 4 Kanals as mortgagee rights of the land of Smt. Hukami D/o Dhulla Singh, but while completing the Column 17 to 26 of Parcha Claim, the area of some other person was incorporated inadvertently in his Parcha Claim and allotment was made accordingly but on re-checking after receipt of complaint, the mistake was corrected. It is not correct that official record was tampered with later on as there is nothing in record in support of this allegation of the petitioner."
It was further submitted that the aforesaid findings were based upon the Jamabandis officially received from Pakistan which have been kept in safe custody in the office of Director, Land Records, Punjab, Jullundur, and which have been perused by the Assistant Registrar before submitting the report.
4. In answer to the second query, it was mentioned by the Chief Settlement Commissioner that each and every Khasra Numbers mentioned in the Jamabandi for the year 1944-45, produced by the petitioner had been tallied with the Jamabandi for the year 1946-47, officially received from Pakistan, which is in 9 Volumes. Shri Gujjar Singh son of Teja Singh, father of the petitioner has been shown having one fourth share in only three Khasra Numbers, i.e. 5063(5-11). 4980(3-8) and 1854(7-0) total 15-19 and the other share holders of these 3 Khasra Nos. are Kehar Singh son of Teja Singh (l/4th share), Hukami D/o Dullar Singh (1/2 share). However, the area of these three Khasra Numbers in the Jamabandi produced by the petitioner is different from the Jamabandi officially received from Pakistan. With regard to other Khara Numbers, the ownership of which is claimed by the petitioner as per Jamabandi for the year 1944-45 produced by him, it was found by the Chief Settlement Commissioner that the figures mentioned therein did not tally with the Jamabadni for the year 1946-47, which was officially received from, Pakistan. The Chief Settlement Commissioner seriously doubted the genuineness of the Jamabandis produced by the petitioner. Any how, it has been averred by the Chief Settlement Commissioner that if changes have occurred in the ownership of Gujjar Singh, predecessor-in-interest of the petitioner, the same might have occurred in between 1944-45 and 1946-47. It was also stated that updated Jamabandis which were corrected upto August 15, 1947 were officially received by the Government of India from Pakistan.
5. In answer to the third query with regard to the age of the petitioner at the relevant time in the year 1953, it has been stated by the Chief Settlement Commissioner that in the absence of relevant documentary proof produced on behalf of the petitioner, in his statement recorded on 18.10.2001, the petitioner himself stated that at the time of attending the Court in the year 1953 his age was 18 to 20 years. However, as per the certificate dated 21.11.2001 issued by the Civil Surgeon, Panchkula, the petitioner was stated to be about 70 years of age by appearance and thus, in the year 1953 he was 23 years of age. Not only this, the petitioner has stated himself to be 36 years of age in the year 1953.
6. Ultimately, the revision petition of the petitioner was dismissed by the Chief Settlement Commissioner as per order dated 28.2.2002. In view of the said report of the Chief Settlement Commissioner as per order dated 28.2.2002, the Commissioner and Secretary (Rehabilitation Department) (Respondent No. 1) concurred with the same and dismissed the revision petition filed by the petitioner vide order dated 6.9.2002 (An-nexure P-11). Now the petitioner has challenged the orders passed by the Revenue Authorities in the present writ petition.
7. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and examined the relevant evidence adduced on record.
8. The detailed facts enumerated above would show that time and again the relevant record received from Pakistan has been examined by the concerned Rehabilitation Authorities and detailed reports have been submitted by them that Gujjar Singh, predecessor-in-interest of the petitioner, was wrongly allotted land measuring 73 Standard Acres and 14-1/4 Units. Gujjar Singh himself submitted a claim of 3 Acres 0 Kanals 4 Marias. According to the entries in the Jamabandis for the year 1946-47, which were submitted by him as well the record officially received from Pakistan, 1 Acre 4 Kanals 4 Marias of land was in his exclusive ownership and over the land measuring 1 Acre and 4 Marias, which was owned by one Hakami daughter of Dulla Singh, he had acquired Mortgagee rights. However, due to some clerical mistake the land measuring 297 Acres 1 Kanal and 12 Marias was shown in the Chhant Jamabandi in his name, though the said area belonged to Gurdial Singh. Gujjar Singh himself appeared before the authorities concerned after cancellation of the land allotted to him, on 27.1.1953, but he did not produce the copies of Jamabandies in order to substantiate his claim, though notice was admittedly received by him on 17.1.1953. The case was adjourned to 16.2.1952, on which date Mahal Singh petitioner appeared and stated that his father was down with fever. The petitioner stated himself to be 36 years of age at the relevant time and made a statement that his father Gujjar Singh held only 3 Acres of land in village Badhana. After a long gap of 40 years in the year 1993 he produced the Jamabandi for the year 1944-45 and laid the claim for re-allotment of the cancelled area in favour of his father Gujjar Singh. The allotments at the relevant time were made on the basis of the Jamabandies for the year 1946-47, which were corrected upto 15th August, 1947 and not earlier to that. I have also got the relevant record read (which is in Urdu language), which was officially received from Pakistan, from one Mr. Avinash Chander, who is a retired Tehsildar. From the record it has come out that Gujjar Singh had owned only 3 Acres of land in village Badhana. It might be possible, that Gujjar Singh may have sold the land in between the period 1944-45 to 1946-47 owning to the fear of disturbed conditions at the relevant time. The petitioner did not adduce any Jamabandi showing the ownership of Gujjar Singh over the land measuring 297 Acres, which was abandoned By him in Pakistan. In view of this, no reliance can be placed on the Jamabandi for the year 1944-45 in the absence of the relevant Jamabandi for the year 1946-47 on the basis of which allotments were made at the relevant time. Moreover, the petitioner has stated himself to be 36 years of age in the year 1953. Thus, he was quite matured at the relevant time and could easily pursue the matter at the relevant quarters, in case his father was owner of 297 Acres of land situated in the village, which now forms part of Pakistan.
9. Consequently, there is no merit in this writ petition. It is, accordingly, dismissed. There shall however, be no order as to costs.