SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
J.C. SHAH AND K.S. HEGDE, JJ.
Shauqin Singh and others, Appellants
Versus
Desa Singh and others, Respondents.
Civil Appeal No. 155 of 1967, D/- 4-12-1969.
Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 226 - Displaced Persons (Compensation & Rehabilitation) Act 44 of 1954 - Section 24 (2) - Rehabilitation Department - Order cancelling allotment of land - Ram Singh-originally a resident of District Lyallpur (now in West Pakistan), migrated to India in 1947 on partition of country - Whether extracts from Khasra-Girdwari produced by respondents 1 to 3 with their application before Land Claims Officer were "fabricated" High Court called upon State Government to produce original Khasra-Girdwari for year 1957-58, but State did not produce record on somewhat specious plea that Khasra-Girdwari was "not traceable" - Held, It appears further that when river Sutlej was in floods it was difficult to save even abad land, that residents of village were permanently in danger of river erosion and that Kanungo-Tahsildar regarded condition of all allottees as "miserable" - It is clear that Chief Settlement Commissioner without having original Khasra-Girdawari before him and without considering relevant evidence came to conclusion that entries produced before Land Claims Officer in support of their application for cancellation of allotment were "not genuine" - Appeal dismissed.
Judgment
SHAH, J. :- Ram Singh - originally a resident of District Lyallpur (now in West Pakistan), migrated to India in 1947 on the partition of the country. The Rehabilitation Department allottted to Ram Singh an area of land in Village Raipur Arain, District Jullundar in lieu of the land which Ram Singh was compelled to abandon. After the death of Ram Singh his sons respondents 1 to 3 complained to the Rehabilitation Department that Ram Singh was cultivating A grade land in District Lyallpur and was on that account entitled to allotment of A Grade land, he had been allotted in Village Raipur Arain C Grade land which was mostly Banjar Cadim unfit for cultivation and subject to river erosion. Respondents 1 to 3 in support of their application tendered certified extracts from Khasra-Girdwari for 1957-58 showing that the land allotted to Ram Singh was subject to river erosion. The Land Claims Officer held an enquiry and called for a report from the Revenue authorities. The Patwari of the village, the Kanungo-Tahsildar and the Assistant Commissioner verified the recitals made in the application and recommended the case of respondent 1 to 3 for allotment of other land. The Land Claims Officer cancelled the allotment of land to Ram Singh in village Raipur Arain and allotted in lieu thereof other land in District Hoshiarpur with "permanent rights". Respondents 1 to 3 took possession of the land and started cultivation. They installed wells and built houses on the land.
2. In 1959 the question the Land Claims Officer recommended to the Chief Settlement Commissioner that the previous order cancelling the allotment of land in favour of Ram Singh was made on the basis of "fabricated extracts from the Khasra-Girdwari". The Chief Settlement Commissioner by order dated September 20, 1962, cancelled the allotment of land to respondents 1 to 3 in District Hoshiarpur.
3. Respondents 1 to 3 then moved a petition before the High Court of Punjab under Article 226 of the Constitution for a writ quashing the order dated September 20, 1962 of the Chief Settlement Commissioner. To this petition the present appellants were on their own application impleaded as parties. They claimed that they had purchased the land allotted to Ram Singh from the original allottee of the land under the orders made by the Land Claims Officer.
4. Mahajan, J., dismissed the petition holding that respondents 1 to 3 obtained the order of exchange and cancellation of the previous allotment by relying upon "fabricated Khasra-Girdwari entries" and the Chief Settlement Commissioner acted properly in setting aside the order made by the Land Claims Officer. Against that order an appeal was preferred to the High Court under the Letters Patent.
5. To determine whether the extracts from Khasra-Girdwari produced by respondents 1 to 3 with their application before the Land Claims Officer were "fabricated" the High Court called upon the State Government to produce the original Khasra-Girdwari for the year 1957-58, but the State did not produce the record on the somewhat specious plea that the Khasra-Girdwari was "not traceable". The State also relied upon an affidavit of the Deputy Secretary to the Government of Punjab, Rehabilitation Department, stating that the order of exchange was obtained by respondents 1 to 3 on the basis of incorrect Khasra-Girdwari entries and that the Tahsildar had signed the copy of the Khasra-Girdwari produced by respondents 1 to 3 without comparing them with the originals as required under the orders of Government. The High Court observed that the Deputy Secretary to the Government of Punjab, Rehabilitation Department, had no personal knowledge and his assertion that the exchange was obtained on the basis of incorrect entries in Khasra-Girdwari was not evidence which supported the claim that the extracts produced were not genuine. The High Court accordingly reversed, the order holding that there was no evidence to show that Khasra-Girdwari entries which were pr
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.