Judgement

SHELAT, J.: This appeal by certificate, is directed against the judgment of the High Court of Punjab dated October 1966.

2. The appellant a military personnel attached to the Sikh Regiment at present, stationed at Meerut, alleged that he was granted a gallantry award under which land situate at Samundri, Lyallpur District now part of Pakistan, was conferred on him in 1947. He relied on two letters, dated February 14, 1947 and April 10, 1947, said to have been issued by the Deputy Commissioner, Lyallpur to the Tehsildar, Samundri, in which it was said that the said land situate in Samundri had been allotted to him.These letters were said to have been signed by one Hardwari Lall, the Personal Assistant of the Deputy Commissioner, for and on behalf of that officer. The appellant produced copies of these two letters said to have been endorsed to him at the time when the original letters were issued to the said Tahsildar.

3. It appears that after partition the appellant laid a claim for land in lieu of the land at Samundri left by him in Pakistan and was allotted about 26 standard acres of land. The allotment was challenged by respondent 3, who having failed before the Deputy Custodian General of Evacuee Property, applied to the Rehabilitation Minister, Government of Punjab. The Minister passed an order dated April 14,1960 cancelling the said allotment. The order was totally unauthorised as the Minister had obviously no jurisdiction to pass it. The Chief Settlement Commissioner, instead of implementing it, only ordered that the legal position with regard to the allotment in appellant s favour may be verified. On doing so, the Managing Officer recommended cancellation of the said allotment on the ground that the copies of letters said to have been endorsed to the appellant and which he had produced did not appear to be genuine. The appellant had also produced before the authorities copies of the said alleged original letters, which he claimed were given to him on his application duly attested by the authorities of Lyallpur.

4. On June 30, 1960, the Commissioner cancelled the allotment giving two reasons for his order. (1) that the revenue record of Lyallpur District pertaining to the land said to have been granted to the appellant did not contain any entry of the appellant having taken possession of the said land, (2) that the appellant had failed to produce the orginal letters of the Deputy Commissioner, Lyallpur to the Tehsildar, Samundri.

5. The appellant flied a writ petition in the High Court which was dismissed by a learned single Judge. The appellant then filed a Letters Patent appeal which was heard by a Division Bench consisting of Mehar Singh and Mahajan, JJ. The Division Bench felt that the question as to the genuineness of the copies of the said two letters was not expressly raised by respondent 3 before the Commissioner, that the Comissioner, therefore, could not have gone into that question, and that apart from the said copies said to have been attested by the Lyallpur authorities, the appellant had also produced "the original letters", i. e., copies of the said original letters addressed by the Deputy Commissioner, Lyallpur to Tehsildar, Samundri, and which were endorsed to him. The Division Bench found that these had not been examined by the Commissioner. On this consideration it set aside the order of the learned single Judge and allowed the appeal. The penultimate paragraph of the judgment allowing the appeal reads as follows:

"In consequence, the order, dated June 10, 1960, of the Chief Settlement Commissioner is quashed and he is further directed to proceed to decide the case on merits after taking into consideration the original letters produced by the appellant and also on the departmental file. The Chief Settlement Commissioner may also take into consideration the attested copies of those letters now obtained by the appellant from the Deputy Commissioner of Lyallpur".

6. The Commissioner re-heard the entire