Dismissed

Rajive Singh v. the Chief Settlement Commissioner & Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC16 Jul 2013CWP/9384/1987

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court dismissed two writ petitions challenging the cancellation of land allotment made under evacuee property schemes. The petitioner, who acquired the land via exchange, was dismissed because the original allottee received proper notice. The cancellation was upheld based on Supreme Court precedents.

What did the court decide?

Cancellation of allotment and impairment of rights maintained against all parties.

Rajive Singh Vs the Chief Settlement… — Landlord and Tenant | Punjab & Haryana HC (2013)

¶1

-1-

¶2

Civil Writ Petition No.9384 of 1987

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

Civil Writ Petition No.9384 of 1987 Date of decision: 16.07.2013

Rajiv Singh

....Petitioner

Versus

The Chief Settlement Commissioner, Haryana and others

¶9

....Respondents

¶10

Civil Writ Petition No.15129 of 2005

Rajiv Singh

....Petitioner

Versus

The State of Haryana and others

¶15

....Respondents

¶16

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PARAMJEET SINGH

¶17

1. Whether Reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?

¶18

1. To be referred to the Reporters or not ?

¶19

1. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ?

¶20

Present: - Mr. Dinesh Ghai, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. K.C. Bhatia, Addl. A.G., Haryana. Mr. Ashok Verma, Advocate, for respondent No. 4 in CWP No.9384 of 1987 and for respondent No.6 in CWP No.15129 of 2005.

¶21

¶22

PARAMJEET SINGH, J.

¶23

This order will dispose of civil writ petition No.9384 of 1987 titled 'Rajiv Singh vs. The Chief Settlement Commissioner, Haryana and others' and civil writ petition No.15129 of 2005 titled 'Rajiv Singh vs.

¶24

Singh Ravinder 2013.08.16 10:39 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

¶25

-2-

¶26

Civil Writ Petition No.9384 of 1987

¶27

The State of Haryana and others'

¶28

For the sake of brevity, facts are being taken from civil writ petition No.9384 of 1987.

¶29

The instant writ petition has been filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India for quashing the order dated 9.10.1987 (Annexure P-5) passed by Chief Settlement Commissioner, Haryana, and the order (Annexure P-6) passed by Assistant Registrar-cum-M.O., Haryana, Rehabilitation Department, Chandigarh, whereby allotment to the extent of 8-13 S.A.S. in the name of Nadar Singh, has been cancelled.

¶30

Brief facts of the case are that land measuring 174 kanals 5 marlas, consisting of various khasra numbers, situated in village Khuian Malkana, Tehsil Dabwali, District Sirsa, was part of the evacuee property belonging to the Muslims, who migrated to Pakistan on the eve of partition of the country in August, 1947. On their migration, the land existing in the names of the Muslims vested in the Custodian of Evacuee Property at the first instance under the provisions of the East Punjab Evacuees (Administration of Property) Act No.14 of 1947. Thereafter, Central Act known as the “Administration of Evacuee Property Act, 1950”, was enacted and the property vested in the Custodian of Evacuee Property. Thereafter another legislation known as “Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954” was passed whereby all the property, declared to be evacuee property, vested in the Central Government free from all encumbrances under Section 7 of the said Act.

¶31

Singh Ravinder 2013.08.16 10:39 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

¶32

-3-

¶33

Civil Writ Petition No.9384 of 1987

¶34

The basic purpose of these enactments was to rehabilitate the persons, who have migrated to India leaving their properties in Pakistan during the eve of partition. In the instant case, respondent No.5 – Nadar Singh, who alleged himself to be migrated from Pakistan and had abandoned his agricultural land in chuck No.178, Tehsil Chistian, District Bahawalpur, sought allotment of land. As a result of it, 8 standard acres 13 units land in village Khuian Malkhana, Tehsil Dabwali, District Sirsa, was allotted to Nadar Singh, which forms part of total land measuring 174 kanals 5 marlas. Ultimately, the said allotment was cancelled by Assistant Registrar-cum-M.O., Haryana, Rehabilitation Department, Chandigarh, vide Annexure P-6 (no date has been mentioned on the annexure). Against that order, Nadar Singh preferred an appeal, which too was dismissed and following order was passed: -

¶35

“Keeping in view the above position of the case and in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India the land allotted for Sh. Nadar Singh allottee to the extent of 8-13 SAS in village Khuian Malkana tehsil Debwali is set aside and the p. rights granted in respect of this land are also cancelled.”

¶36

Petitioner has set up a claim that for their convenience and for better management of their respective properties, they have entered into mutual exchange of their properties. As a result of exchange, the property which was in the name of Nadar Singh had come to the petitioner and some of the property and shop had gone to Nadar Singh. In pursuance of the exchange, petitioner was put in possession of the land in question and had become absolute owner of the said property.

¶37

Singh Ravinder 2013.08.16 10:39 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

¶38

-4-

¶39

Civil Writ Petition No.9384 of 1987

¶40

The claim of the petitioner is that since he was in possession of the property in pursuance of valid exchange, he cannot be dispossessed from the said land and any order passed against him, without affording opportunity of hearing, is not binding upon his rights.

¶41

On notice, respondents appeared and filed their respective written statements.

¶42

Respondent No.4, Gram Panchayat, submitted that writ petition is mis-conceived and not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed. Petitioner is aggrieved against order dated 9.10.1987 (Annexure P-5) passed by Chief Settlement Commissioner, Haryana, and the order Annexure P-6 passed by Assistant Registrar-cum-M.O., Haryana, Rehabilitation Department, Chandigarh. In fact, Assistant Registrar-cum-M.O., Haryana, Rehabilitation Department, Chandigarh, has not passed virtually any order rather made a reference to the Chief Settlement Commissioner for cancellation of the allotment. The impugned order could not have been challenged by way of present writ petition. Alternate remedy under Section 33 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954 was available to him and the Chief Settlement Commissioner has suo motu power under Section 24 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954 to cancel the allotment. The impugned orders have been passed after hearing the parties and effecting due service upon respondent No.5/Nadar Singh i.e. the original allottee. Respondent No.4 further pleaded that evacuee property in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble

¶43

Singh Ravinder 2013.08.16 10:39 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

¶44

-5-

¶45

Civil Writ Petition No.9384 of 1987

¶46

Supreme Court in Gram Panchayat of village Jamalpur vs. Malwinder Singh, 1985 (3) SCC 661 vests in gram panchayat and the Evacuee Department cannot alienate or allot the same. In the reply, gram panchayat has claimed ownership of the land in dispute, including other land.

¶47

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

¶48

A Division Bench of this Court, of which I was a Member, in C ivil Writ Petition No.18909 of 2005 titled “Jeona Singh and others vs. The State of Haryana and others” decided on 3.10.2011, has held as under: -

¶49

“The Chief Settlement Commissioner made a reference to the Assistant Registrar- cum- Managing Officer, Rehabilitation Department for initiating proceedings for cancellation of land allotted to the original allottee and in pursuance to that proceedings, order dated 28.12.1987, Annexure P-2, had been passed and in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Gram Panchayat, Jamalpur Versus Malwinder Singh (AIR 1985 Supreme Court 1394), the allotment of shamlat land to the allottee was held void and the same was cancelled.

¶50

The State of Haryana made amendment in the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (hereinafter to be referred to as 'the Act'), vide Haryana Amendment Act No. 13 of 1996 which received the assent of Governor of Haryana on 8.4.1996. By way of amendment Subclause 2(ii-a) was introduced after clause 2(ii) of Section 2(g) and the land allotted on or before 9th July, 1985 was excluded from the

¶51

Singh Ravinder 2013.08.16 10:39 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

¶52

-6-

¶53

Civil Writ Petition No.9384 of 1987

¶54

purview of Section 2(g) of 'the Act'. The validity of amendment in the said Act has been up-held by the Division Bench of this Court in CWP No. 4816 of 1996 titled as Gram Panchayat of Village Kum Kalan Vs. The State of Punjab and others decided on 7.4.2010. Admittedly, the allotment of the land in favour of the allottee was made prior to 9.7.1985 and as such the land allotted on or before the said date is excluded from the purview of Section 2 (g) of ' the Act', referred above.”

¶55

In view of this fact, considering the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Gram Panchayat of village Jamalpur vs. Malwinder Singh (supra), Assistant Registrar-cum-M.O., Haryana, Rehabilitation Department, Chandigarh, has rightly made reference to the competent authority i.e. the Chief Settlement Commissioner under Section 24 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954. Nadar Singh was given a notice of the same but he did not appear. After considering the settled position of law, the Chief Settlement Commissioner cancelled the allotment in favour of Nadar Singh, original allottee to the extent of 8-13 SAS. Petitioner has stepped into the shoes of Nadar Singh i.e. the original allottee. Allotment and p- rights were cancelled vide order dated 9.10.1987 in consonance with the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Gram Panchayat of village Jamalpur vs. Malwinder Singh (supra).

¶56

Since principal person/Nadar Singh, who was the original allottee, was given notice, petitioner, who has stepped into the shoes of Nadar Singh, is not entitled to be heard in this Court.

¶57

Singh Ravinder 2013.08.16 10:39 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

¶58

-7-

¶59

Civil Writ Petition No.9384 of 1987

¶60

In view of this, I do not find any merit in the present writ

¶61

petitions.

¶62

Dismissed.