Back
2000 Supreme(P&H) 591
FINANCIAL COMMISSIONER PUNJAB
Shyama Mann, FC.
Surjit Singh - Petitioners
Versus
Tehsildar (Sales)-cum-Managing Officer, Kapurthala - Respondents
M.R. No. 14 of 1999.
Decided On : 30 May, 2000
For the Petitioners:Mr. T.R. Vij, Advocate.
For the Respondent No. 3:Mr. Malkiat Singh, Advocate.
For the State : Mr. Balbir Singh, Senior State Counsel.
The judgment establishes the principle that fraudulent allotments under the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954 can be set aside, and authorities must conduct inquiries into similar allotments.
Headnote:
Fraudulent Allotment - Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954 - Section 33
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners sought to set aside the allotment of a public path to a respondent, alleging fraudulent and unauthorized allocation. The respondent's whereabouts were in question, and the alleged attorney failed to produce the original allottee, raising suspicions about the authenticity of the allotment.
Finding of the Court:
The court found the allotment to be invalid and fraudulent, and the Deputy Commissioner's dismissal of the case was deemed unsatisfactory. The court directed an inquiry into other similar allotments and ordered action to cancel them if found to be dubious.
Issues: Validity of the allotment, failure to produce the original allottee, and the Deputy Commissioner's dismissal of the case
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the allotment was not valid, the Deputy Commissioner's decision was unsatisfactory, and an inquiry into other similar allotments was necessary.
Final Decision: The court directed the Deputy Commissioner to conduct an inquiry into other allotments and take action to cancel them if found to be dubious.
Shyama Mann, FC. - This is a petition under Section 33 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954. The petitioner have requested for setting aside the order of the Deputy Commissioner-cum-Chief Settlement Commissioner, Kapurthala dated 8.4.1999 vide which their revision petition was dismissed in limine on grounds of non-maintainability.
2. The dispute relates to the allotment of an area measuring 2K-3M in favour of Dalip Singh son of Labh Singh through his General Attorney, Surjit Singh son of Arjan Singh of Ludhiana. The plea of the petitioners is that this allotted land is public path, i.e., Shar-e-aam rasta and the allotment of this strategic piece of land was made in a very secret manner to Respondent No. 2, Dalip Singh. It has been alleged that the allotment is bogus in nature the power of attorney claimed to have been executed in 1979 is a false document and being an imposter the claimant did not come forward himself. The allotment is fraudulent and has been secured by misrepresentation and concealment of facts. It has also been asserted that the allotment of a public path is prohibited. The jamabandi for 1987-88 shows that khasra No. 96 in Khewat No. 679, Khatauni 1257 is owned by local Malkan in 1/8 share and by the Custodian in 7/8 share. The total area is 12K-13M and it is recorded as Gairmumkin Rasta. No Lagaan is being paid for this area. The same entries are repeated in khasra girdawari upto Sauni, 1988 wherein also it is entered as public path. The possession of this path was entered in favour of respondent No. 2 vide rapat No. 6 dated 3.1.1989 and the area was sold to respondent No. 3 vide registered sale deed dated 16.1.1989 for a consideration of Rs. 6,000/-. Thus, the respondent No. 2 has endeavoued to complicate the entire matter for his personal gain. It is further alleged that there is no goshwara allotment forwarded by the Rehabilitation Department, Chandigarh to the Tehsildar (Sales) for allotment and no case has been consigned in D.L.Rs office regarding this allotment and nor is the same traceable in Deputy Commissioner Office, Kapurthala. Thus, it is evident that a bogus parchi for allotment was made and "dakhal" of Surjit Singh was entered in the revenue record who immediately, thereafter, sold it through registered sale deed. Otherwise, also the rule has been violated as Shar-e-aam rasta is not allotable nor is composite property allotable as per Evacuee Separation Interest Act, 1951 without separating shares after partition. It has also been urged that the path in dispute is being used by 150 families in four villages who would be affected if they are deprived of this passage.
3. Notice of petition was sent to respondents Nos. 2 and 3. Sh. Malkiat Singh, Advocate appeared for respondents No. 3, Avtar Singh and Amar Singh on 17.8.1999. As no report regarding service of Dalip Singh allottee, was received he was directed to be served again for 14.9.1999. On 14.9.1999 Sh. Ajit Singh, Advocate appeared for Amar Singh respondent No. 3 and Surjit Singh alleged General Attorney of respondent No. 2. He also filed a Vakalatnama for them. Later on Sh. R.S. Hundal, Advocate filed a Vakalatnama for Surjit Singh and also appeared for him on 22.2.2000.
4. Efforts were made to effect personal service on Dalip Singh, respondent No. 2 but on account of non-availability of his correct address his personal service could not be effected. Dalip Singh allottee was reported to be the resident of village Rahon where he had reportedly been allotted some land. The report dated 19.1.2000 of Tehsildar, Khanna reveals that the patwari had made inquiries regarding the whereabouts of Dalip Singh son of Labh Singh from respectables in the village and they informed that there is no person of this name residing in the village nor had any person of that name ever resided in that village. It was also reported that the examination of the records did not reveal the existence of any such person in that villa
