JUDGMENT

OZA, J. :— This appeal arises out of a judgment of the Punjab and Haryana High Court delivered in Civil Regular Second Appeal No. 1871 of 1975 dated 31-12-1983.

2. This second appeal before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana was taken against the judgment of Additional District Judge, Patiala who affirming the judgment of the trial Court i.e. Sub-Judge 1st class. Rajpura, maintained the dismissal of the suit filed by the plaintiff-present appellant.

3. The suit was filed for a declaration that the appellant plaintiff is the owner in possession of agricultural lands measuring 100 Bighas 10 Biswas comprising Khasra Nos. 54-1-2-3-8/3-9-11-19/20/55/3-4-5-6-7-15,55/16, 20 situated in village Urdan. Tehsil Rajpura with the consequential relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendant from interfering with the possession of the plaintiff and dispossession thereof in any manner.

4. The appellant Pujari Bai. it is alleged. migrated from Pakistan in 1947 after the partition of the country and she left behind in Pakistan a large area of agricultural land. In 1949 Government in order to settle such refugees adopted certain measures and gave land to the displaced persons for the purpose of cultivation. The displaced persons claims were examined by the claims organisation set up by the East Punjab Government at some places and the lands were given individually to those who had left behind agricultural lands in the West Punjab which became Pakistan after 1947. As Smt. Pujari Bai was one of such claimants. she was allotted certain lands in village Urdan. On 29-12-1962 allotment made was quasi permanent in character but on 29-4-1963 the lands were transferred to her permanently. The transfer was as right, title and interest in ownership by a Sanad issued in the name of the president (the Central Government) under Rule 68 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation & Rehabilitation) Rules, 1954. This was the basis of her claim.

5. It appears that the defendant respondent had also migrated from Pakistan like the appellant and on 29-12-1959 some lands were also allotted to him but no entry could be made in the revenue record and it was not certain whether possession was taken by the respondent. On 29-6-1960 during the consolidation proceedings. no tuk was however, made for the respondent. He filed objections and to these objections Pujari Bai, was not a party The objections were rejected. It appears that against this order he appealed to the Appellate Authority - The Settlement Officer (Appeals) and this appeal also was dismissed. He took up the matter in second appeal to the Assistant Director Consolidation of Holdings who remanded the matter to the Special Settlement Officer with certain observations. He observed "that there have been over-allotment and authorities will see that first allottee is given land first". He also observed that it all happened because of the mistake of the Consolidation authorities. This order was passed on 2-12-1963.

6. In spite of this remand order made by the Assistant Director Consolidation, nothing happened for about three years. In 1966 the respondent filed a writ petition before the High Court of Punjab & Haryana. Even to this writ petition the present appellant Pujari Bai was not a party. In this writ petition a direction was sought to implement the aforesaid order of the Assistant Director, Consolidation. The High Court by the order dated 25-11-1966 directed that the observations contained in the order passed by the Assistant Director should be complied with.

7. After the direction of the High Court the Consolidation Officer became active. He started enforcing the observations contained in the remand order of the Assistant Director and in so doing, he found that the land allotted to various persons in the village was more than the land available for allotment. In order to resolve this difficulty he evolved a via-media. He deprived some of the allottees of the part of land allotted to them, and the app