SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
D.A. DESAI, A.P. SEN AND V. BALAKRISHNA ERADI, JJ.
Union of India and another, Appellants
Versus
Avtar Singh and another, Respondents.
Civil Appeal No. 503 of 1971
Decided on 4-4-1984.
Cases Referred : Chronological Paras
Advocates appeared
Mr. M. M. Abdul Khader, Sr. Advocate, Miss A. Subhashini Advocate with him for Appellants; M/s P. P. Rao, Sr. Advocate (for No.1) and Mr. R. S. Bindra, Sr. Advocate, Mr. Harbans Singh, Advocate with him (for No. 2), for Respondents.
* L.P.A. No.384 of 1966, D/-22-5-1969 (Punj) & Har).
Punjab Refugees (Registration of Land Claims) Act. 1948 - Section 33 - Administration of Evacuee Property Act, 1950 -Section 2 (c) and 14 - Agricultural land – Partition - Revenue records - Owner of agricultural land comprised in Deh No. as also a portion of land included in Deh No. situated in District, in erstwhile now forming part had three sons was wife - It was alleged that in year effected a partition of agricultural land between himself, his three sons and his wife each being given an almost equal share - It was alleged that intimation of alleged partition was sent to revenue authorities of Sind Province with a request to effect necessary mutation in revenue records showing land as having been given in partition to particular person - Entire land including land belonging to heirs who was his father-in-law - Later on intimated to Rehabilitation Authorities that out of a total claim of 300 acres of land lodged by him, about 75 acres. of land was of ownership and confined his claim to total area of 225 acres of land - It may be mentioned that in claim lodged on there was no reference to partition effected by between himself, his sons and his wife - It was alleged that these claims were verified and allotments of land were made to extent of 21-8 standard acres in favour of each claimant on temporary basis - Whether it was an inter-departmental communication or it was decision recorded in exercise of power conferred by Section 33 of Act? - Whether on an earlier occasion had Central Government exercised any revisional power conferred by Section 33 in respect of order dated – Held, In first claim lodged by him, he clearly stated that he was owner of 300 acres - He then modified it to 225 acres - In neither of two claims, he ever suggested that there was a partition between him and his sons also giving a share to his wife - Story of partition clearly appears to be an after thought because it is helpful in obtaining higher allotment - No documentary evidence has been placed on record to support case of partition which clearly appears to have been an afterthought - Earlier entries from permitted a negative inference that there was no partition - CENTRAL Government while setting aside the order of Chief Settlement Commissioner dated recorded finding that - There is no writing or deed of partition - Revenue records show name of alone on basis of sale deed in his exclusive name - There are no receipts indicating separate payment of land revenue by any one of the respondents after alleged partition - No objection was taken by the sons at time of filing of claim by father - There is no mention of individuals share in claim filed by father - Respondents contended has died and his heirs having not been substituted, appeal has abated - There is no merit in this contention - Was not petitioner before High Court - He was respondent No. 2. No relief was claimed against him - Further was not asked to surrender land Petitioners before High Court were adversely affected by impugned decisions - Death of would therefore have no impact on this appeal - Therefore, contention is rejected - Appeal allowed
JUDGMENT
DESAI, J.:—Avtar Singh and Dr. Kartar Singh two sons of S. Harnam Singh filed Civil Writ No. 1242 of 1965 against their father S. Harnam Singh, respondent No. 2 and Union of India and Tehsildar cum Managing Officer, respondents Nos. 1 and 3 respectively questioning the correctness and validity of an order dated, March 15, 1965, Anexure G to the petition.
2. S. Harnam Singh was the owner of agricultural land comprised in Deh No. 100 as also a portion of the land included in Deh No. 99 situated in District Nawab Shah, in erstwhile Sind Province now forming part of Pakistan. Harnam Singh had three sons; Avtar Singh, Dr. Kartar Singh and Harbans Singh. Smt. Tej Kaur was the wife of Harnam Singh. It was alleged that in the year 1946 Harnam Singh effected a partition of agricultural land between himself, his three sons and his wife Smt. Tej Kaur each being given an almost equal share. It was alleged that intimation of the alleged partition was sent to the revenue authorities of Sind Province with a request to effect necessary mutation in the revenue records showing land as having been given in the partition to the particular person. After the partition of the country S. Harnam Singh his three sons and his wife migrated to India and they claim to be displaced persons. Harnam Singh lodged a claim on March 15, 1948 in respect of the entire land including the land belonging to the heirs of Ch. Avtar Singh who was his father-in-law. Later on, April 21, 1948 Harnam Singh intimated to the Rehabilitation Authorities that out of a total claim of 300 acres of land lodged by him, about 75 acres. of land was of the ownership of Ch. Attar Singh and confined his claim to the total area of 225 acres of land. It may be mentioned that in the claim lodged on March 15,1948 there was no reference to the partition effected by Harnam Singh between himself, his sons and his wife. On the introduction of the Punjab Refugees (Registration of Land Claims) Act. 1948 (Act for short) on April 3, 1948 Harnam Singh and his sons as also Smt. Tej Kaur filed separate claims on the basis of the partition of the land which originally belonged to S. Harnam Singh. It was alleged that these claims were verified and allotments of land were made to the extent of 21-8 standard acres in favour of each claimant on temporary basis. On October 5, 1953 Harnam Singh and his sons approached the authorities in the Rehabilitation Department to convert temporary allotment into quasi-permanent allotment. Deputy Registrar Land Claims accepted the request of Harnam Singh and his sons, both with regard to the ownership of the land as well as partition thereof amongst various members of the family. However, it was recommended that on the basis of the revised calculation, each claimant would be entitled to 19-11 1/2 S. A. of land instead of 21-8 S. A. and the excess allotment should be cancelled. This recommendation was approved by the comepetent authority vide its order dated October 28, 1953 as also by the Deputy Custodian of Evacuee Property as per its order dated November 11, 1953. Consequently excess allotment of 8-14 1/2 standard acres in respect of five claimants was cancelled and the remaining allotment was ordered to be made on quasi-permanent basis. It was alleged that later on proprietary rigts were conferred on each claimant in respect of the land allotted to him by the Managing Officer. Sometime in 1960, a notice was received by the allottees from the Chief Settlement Commissioner, Punjab calling upon them to show cause why their allotment should not be cancelled. In view of the notice, it became necessary for the allottees to establish not only the ownership of land in Sind but the partition thereof amongst themselves. The allottees claimed that they offered the necssary proof which satisfied the Chief Settlement Commissioner who had issued notice on the basis of Jamabandi entries received from Pakistan. Accordingly the Chief Settlement Commissioner by his order dated
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.