Civil Writ Petition No. 15082 of 1996 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No. 15082 of 1996 Date of decision: 6.5.2009 Ram Chand and another ...petitioners Versus Financial Commissioner, Revenue, Punjab ...respondent. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH Present: Mr. Gurjeet Singh Bawa, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Parveen Chander Goyal, Addl.A.G., Punjab for respondents No. 1 to 4. Mr. C.L. Sharma, Advocate for respondent No. 5. RANJIT SINGH J. Petitioners have challenged the order passed by Financial Commissioner. Deputy Commissioner, Roopnagar exercising the power of Chief Settlement Commissioner had set aside an order passed by the Settlement Commissioner and directed that respondent No. 5 be not disturbed and directed Tehsildar to allot fresh land measuring 17 Biswas to the petitioners. The Financial Commissioner upheld the same through his order dated 23.7.1996. One Bihari Lal and Brij Mohan were allotted land measuring 207 kanals 9 marlas in lieu of land left by them in Pakistan. Bihari Lal sold part of this land to petitioner No.1 on 31.7.1975. On 28.8.1984, Amar Singh, respondent No. 5 challenged the allotment made in favour of Bihari Lal qua 17 biswas of land, being part of Khasra No. 267, claiming that the same was in his Civil Writ Petition No. 15082 of 1996 2 possession since 1947. This plea of Amar Singh was rejected on 20.9.1984 by the Settlement Commissioner on the ground of being barred by limitation. Amar Singh filed a revision against this order which was allowed on 22.4.1987 by Chief Settlement Commissioner. The petitioners filed a revision petition against this order, which was allowed by Financial Commissioner, Punjab on 26.7.1994. Review petition was also declined. Thereafter Amar Singh, respondent No.5 filed a Civil Writ Petition No. 3098 of 1995 before this Court. The exparte order passed against Amar Singh was set aside on 16.8.1995 with the directions that the case be decided afresh on merits in the presence of Amar Singh. Then Financial Commissioner thereafter took up the review petition in view of the remand order passed by this Court and vide his order dated 23.7.1996 upheld the order dated 22.4.4987 passed in favour of respondent No.5. It was now the turn of the petitioners to take action against this order and has filed the present petition. Respondent No. 5 had earlier filed a civil suit against the petitioners seeking permanent injunction which was dismissed. Appeal filed by Amar Singh against the same was dismissed on 28.10.1980. Objection filed by him was also dismissed in the year 1984. Thereafter he had approached the Settlement Commissioner. In an execution application filed by the petitioners, respondent No. 5 and others were directed to remove Malba failing which it was liable to be demolished. However, the order passed by civil Court are not placed on record. It appears that thereafter respondent No. 5 had approached the Settlement Commissioner leading to passing of the impugned order. It is because of this development that demolition of Civil Writ Petition No. 15082 of 1996 3 the house has not come about. Amar Singh, respondent No.5 thus continues to be in possession of the property. It is now only required to be seen if the order passed by the Financial Commissioner suffers from any infirmity which may require interference in exercise of writ jurisdiction. The Chief Settlement Commissioner vide his order dated 22.4.1987 has found that it was inadvertent omission on the part of the Rehabilitation Department to have allotted this land to Bihari Lal, original allottee. The present petitioners, who were respondents No. 3 and 4, were taken to be rightful vendee and their claim was also found just. The submission made on behalf of Amar Singh, (respondent No.5) that he should not be disturbed and the loss of present petitioners be compensated by making alternative allotment found favour with the Chief Settlement Commissioner. Accordingly, the Chief Settlement Commissioner had accepted the petition of Amar Singh with the direction that he should not be disturbed from the possession of the land in dispute i.e. 17 biswas and Tehsildar (Sales)-Cum-Managing Officer, Rupnagar was directed to make fresh allotment of land measuring 17 biswas elsewhere to the petitioners. The Financial Commissioner ultimately upheld this order on 23.7.1996. He found the order passed by the Chief Settlement Commissioner to be well reasoned. The Financial Commissioner also observed that Amar Singh was in possession of this 17 biswas of a land since 1947-48 and this was located within Lal Lakir. The Financial Commissioner also observed that the petitioners who was subsequent vendee from the allottees should also not be made to suffer because of the act of omission and commission on the part of Civil Writ Petition No. 15082 of 1996 4 the Rehabilitation Department. Respondent No. 5, Amar Singh was held entitled to this 17 biswas of land. The Financial Commissioner took this view purely on moral and humanitarian consideration and observed that Amar Singh had a prior right of possession since 1947-48. The Financial Commissioner also took note of the civil suit filed before the Senior Sub Judge, Ropar against which Amar Singh, respondent had filed an appeal before the Additional District Judge, Ropar. The Local Commissioner was appointed to give his report who found that Khasra No. 267 measured 5 bighas 19 biswas comprising plot No. 14 to 19 in all and 17 biswas of land were out of khasra No. 267. The local Commissioner further reported that the entire khasra should not have been allotted to Bihari Lal or his legal heirs. He accordingly recommended that 17 biswas should have been allotted to Shri Amar Singh and others, who were in possession thereof. This suit was dismissed on 9.11.1981 with the observation that it was not for the Court to determine that the allotment of whole khasra No. 267 to Bihari Lal was justified or not. Respondent, Amar Singh had also filed an objection petition in the civil Court which was turned down in the year 1984 as noticed above. It is thereafter that respondent No.5 had invoked jurisdiction of the revenue Courts realising that remedy to seek setting aside of the allotment would lie with the Rehabilitation Department. Financial Commissioner found no merit in the case of the petitioners, and thus revision was dismissed and the order passed by the Chief Settlement Commissioner was upheld. No doubt the petitioners are the bona fide purchasers and ordinarily should have been protected. They are the subsequent Civil Writ Petition No. 15082 of 1996 5 purchasers from the allottee. The part of this allotment has been cancelled on the ground that this land was in possession of respondent-Amar Singh since 1947-48. Counsel for the petitioners has not been able to refer any material from record to show that the finding returned by the authorities that respondent-Amar Singh was in possession of this part of land since 1947-48 is wrong or not based on the records. If this be the factual position, this land could not have been allotted to the person from whom the petitioners had purchased the same. The authorities have passed the order keeping in view the equity . It will not be appropriate at this stage to dislodge respondent-Amar Singh by demolishing his house in which he concededly is staying since 1947-48. Since the petitioners have been compensated and their interest has been protected by directing allotment of land to them, this will take care of their interest. It may not lead to removing their entire grievances. The remaining part of the land except this 17 Biswas, if any, would remain with the petitioners. Counsel for the petitioners points out that the petitioners have not been allotted any alternative land. If that be so, let the petitioners move an application before the Chief Settlement Commissioner within two weeks from today. If they do so, Chief Settlement Commissioner will make every endeavour to allot alternative land to the petitioners within one month of the receipt of the copy of the application. No interference in the impugned order is otherwise called for. The writ petition stands dismissed. May 06, 2009 (RANJIT SINGH) rts JUDGE