A.K. Mathur, J.@mdashPetitioner by this writ petition has challenged the orders dated 31.7.78 (Anx.3 D), 16.7.80 (Anx.4) and 16.12.80 (Anx.5).
2. Brief facts which are necessary for disposal of this writ petition are that one Shri Narain Singh son of Shri Tek Singh migrated to India from Pakistan after leaving his agricultural property there. He had a verified claim No. R/GN/1788-R ledger A/C 106/V-TLA entitling him to allotment of 9 standar acres and 10-11/10 units to one square i.e. 25 bighas. Narain Singh got the land allotted in village khakhawali, Tehsil Fazilka District Ferozpur in the Punjab against the aforesaid claim. Narain Singh got allotted 25 bighas of the land comprising in Murabba No. 30 in Chak No. 38 P.S. Tehsil Raisinghnagar by cancelling the fact of allotment in his favour in Punjab. The respondents Anokh Singh and Bahal Singh sons of Narain Singh simultaneously got allotted 25 bighas of land each comprising Murabba Nos. 20 and 29 in the said village although they did not have to their credit any verified claim so as to entitle them to allotment of land as displaced persons. One Shri O.S. Pradhan, Officer on Special Duty possessing the powers of settlement Commissioner, during the enquiry found that Narain Singh and his wife has expired and the allotment of land in favour of Narain Singh was not in order. Therefore, the said officer passed an order on 25.3.54 cancelling the allotment of Narain Singh in respect or Murabba No. 30. It is further stated that the said Shri Pradhan, Settlement Officer on Special Duty further ordered that the land comprising in Murabba Nos. 20 and 29 in favour of Shri Anokh Singh and Bahal Singh will be continued and confirmed in case the allotment have been made in the name of Shri Narain Singh in village Khakhawali is got cancelled. It is alleged that accordingly the respondants Shri Anokh Singh and Shri Bahal Singh got cancelled that allotment in Punjab in favour of their father Shri Narain Singh and produced the order of cancellation before the authority concerned. On the production of the same, the allotment of Murbba Nos. 20 and 29 made in favour of Anokh Singh and Bahal Singh was confirmd but as the allotment was beyond the entitlement, it was ordered that Anokh Singh will pay an additional amount of Rs. 2048.83 in respect of the land allotment to him in excess of the entitlement and Shri Bahal Singh will similarly pay a sum of Rs. 2054.88 in respect of each land. It is alleged that Murabba Nos. 20 and 29 to Anokh Singh and Bahal Singh was not against verified claim of the deceased Narain Singh father of these two respondents but it was beyond the entitlement as per the verified claims. It is alleged that the allotment of Narain Singh stood cancelled earlier and no question could arise in respect of the land of the said Murabbas being allotted or inherited by the two respondents. When the allotment in favour of Narain Singh of Murabba No. 30 was cancelled, the land became available for allotment and the same came be allotted to the petitioner Kartar Singh against the verified claim No. S/NS-2/2316 to the extent of 31 standard acres. It is alleged that the petitioner was entitled to be allotted more than 25 bighas of land of Murabba No. 30 and in order to make the deficiency good he was also allotted the land in Chak N0.8-C Sriganganagar measuring 20 bighas and 11 biswas. This allotment was made on an application of the petitioner when this land was available for allotment to the petitioner by the Settlement Officer, Sriganganagar vide order dt. 12.4.55 and the possession of this land was given to the petitioner. It is alleged that the petitioner by mistake fail to file compensation application and this entailed the imposition of penalty, therefore, petitioner was called upon to pay by way of penalty a sum of Rs. 15,180/- being twice the price of the land and interest there on. Thereafter the sale-deed was executed on 24.4.80 and the same was entered into registered. It is submitted that because the petitioner was short of funds therefore he effected the sale of 12 1/2 Bighas of land out of Murabba No. 30 to one Mrs. Vijendra Singh by registered sale-deed. The petitioner has also stated at the aforesaid land was included in the compensation pool u/s 12 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to the Act of 1954.)
3. An appeal was preferred by Anokh Singh and Bahal Singh in the court of the Authorised Settlement Commissioner (Additional Collector) Sriganganagar against the cancellation of allotment of their father Narain Singh. This appeal was accompanied by an application u/s 5 of the Indian Limitation Act which has been placed on record as Ex.38 and 3 C. It was stated in that the application u/s 5 of the Limitation Act that the applicant did not know about the order of the cancellation of the allotment in favour of their father Narain Singh dt 25.3.54. It is further alleged that after the cancellation of the allotment of Shri Narain Singh in Punjab, Narain Singh''s allotment could not have been cancelled in Rajasthan without notice to Narain Singh or his heirs i.e. Anokh Singh and Bahal Singh. It is alleged that they did not know about the cancellation in favour of the Narain Singh of his allotment by the order dt. 25.3.54 and when they came to know about it they preferred present appeal along with application u/s 5 of the Limitation Act requested that the delay in filing the appeal may be condoned as no notice was given to them and the Authorised Settlement Commissioner decided the matter Ex-party without notice to them. The Authorised Settlement Commissioner by order dt 31.7.78 quashed the order dt. 25.3.54 cancelling the allotment in favour of the Narain Singh and remanded this case back to the Managing Officer to decide this case in terms of the direction given by him in his order dt. 31.7.78 Ex.30. When the case came after remand before the Managing Officer, petitioner came to know about the same and moved an application for joining the proceedings as a party. He did not file any appeal or revision against the order of the Authorised Settlement Commissioner dt. 31.7.78. The Managing Officer took up the proceedings and after hearing the Petitioner and the other respondents came to the conclusion that the cancellation of the allotment of Narain Singh was arroneous as Shri Narain Singh has already got allotment in Punjab cancelled therefore he set aside the order of the Managing Officer vide order dt. 16.7.80 and cancelled the allotment in favour of the petitioner affirming the allotment in favour of Narain Singh. Aggrieved against this order a revision was preferred by the petitioner before the Authorised Chief Settlement Commissioner, Sriganganagar and the Chief Settlement Commissioner, Sriganganagar affirmed the order of the Managing Officer vide order dt. 16.12.80(Anx.5). Aggrieved against this order, petitioner has filed the present writ petition challenging the order Anx.5 of the Chief Settlement Commissioner dt 16.12.80, Anx. 4 order of the Managing Officer dt. 16-7-80 and the order Anx. 3D dt. 31.7.78 of the Authorised Settlement Commissioner.
4. I have heard both the learned Counsel and perused the record. Mr. Saluja learned Counsel for the petitioner has streneously urged before me that the order Anx.3D by which the Authorised Settlement Commissioner has condoned the delay without any notice to the petitioner is bad. It is submitted by him that as the allotment in favour of Narain Singh was cancelled way back on 25.3.54 and the same land was allotted to the petitioner should have been given a notice but no such notice was given to him, therefore, the initial order dt. 31.7.75 remanding the case back to the Managing Officer suffers from the error of breach of principle of natural justice and that order should be set aside and consequently all subsequently order should also be put naught. The argument of learned Counsel at the prima-facie appears to be attractive but after going through the orders of the Chief Settlement Commissioner, Managing Officer and the Authorised Settlement Commissioner, I am if the opinion that this argument of the learned Counsel cannot be sustained. The Authorised Settlement Commissioner in his order Ex. 30 dt. 31.7.78 has recorded after going through the record that no notice what-soever was issued to the heirs of the deceased Narain Singh for cancellation of the allotment made in favour of Narain Singh. This was cancelled way back on 25-3-54 and when the sons of Narain Singh, Anokh Singh and Bahal Singh wanted to deposit the remaining amount and made a enquiry from office, they came to know that the allotment have been cancelled way back in 25.3.54. All the authorities has found that both these persons Anokh Singh and Bahal Singh through Narain Singh were in possession of the land in and the same was cancelled way back 25.3.54, it was necessary for the concerned authorities to have atleast served a notice either to Narain Singh who was alive at the time, but this was not done. Therefore this order was set aside by the Authorised Settlement Commissioner. When the case came up on remand before the Managing Officer, petitioner joined the issue and the Managing Officer also came to the same conclusion that Narain Singh or his heirs were not given a notice before cancellation of the allotment in their favour. Specially when Narain Singh has got his allotment cancelled way back in 1951 in the Punjab. The Managing Officer examined the allotment of this land made in favour of the petitioner also and he came to the conclusion that the so called allotment in favour of the petitioner was also bad for which he has given number of reasons, that the petitioner had already a land allotted to him in Murabba N0.8-C and he has cast the aspersion on the conduct of the petitioner. I am not going to examine that part of the case as the principal question before me and before all the subordinate authorities was that whether the cancellation on favour of Narain Sing was vaild done or not. Once it is found that the cancellation of the allotment in favour of Narain Singh was bad then that land could not have been allotted in favour of the petitioner. The petitioner has not placed any material on the record to rebut the finding recording by the Authorised Settlement Commissioner that the respondents were guilty in not moving the competent authority in time. The Authorised Settlement Commissioner has come to the conclusion that the allotment in favour of the Narain Singh was cancelled erroneously and he has condoned delay for a sufficient reason. No argument was raised even before the Settlement Commissioner that whether the condonation of delay on the part of the Authorised Settlement Commissioner was valid or not. Secondly when the petitioner felt aggrieved against the order of condoning the delay by the Settlement Commissioner dt. 31.7.78 he should have filed an appeal or revision before the higher authority. But no step was taken by the petitioner by challenging this order before the higher forum showing that the condonation of delay in favour of Narain Singh was rightly done or not. Thus this finding recorded by the Authorised Settlement Commissioner vide order dt. 31.7.78 remained intact without being challenged before any forum. Once the allotment in favour of Narain Singh was erroneously cancelled then the land cannot be twice allotted. Therefore the order dt. 31.7.78 became final. So far as condonation of delay is concerned, this Court cannot interfere in this order without there being any sufficient justification for the same. The resultant position is that the allotment in favour of Narain Singh remain intact. Once the allotment in favour of Narain Singh remains intact, this land cannot be allotted in favour of the petitioner as such allotment in favour of petitioner was rightly cancelled.
5. Learned Counsel has also submitted that this land has already been put in compensation pool u/s 12 therefore this land was not free for allotment to the respondents. This argument was not raised before any of the authorities below nor any factual averment has been made out in the petition that whether this piece of land was included in the compensation pool or not. This is essentially a question of the fact and sufficient material is not before this Court so as to examine that whether this land at all could have been allotted to the respondents or not as such this argument is also devoid of any merit.
6. In this view of the matter I don''t find any merit in this writ petition and the same is hereby dismissed.
