C.W.P No.4070 of 1987 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P No.4070 of 1987 Date of Decision. 01.12.2011 Smt. Ram Piari wife of Dharam Chand, resident of House No.B-1349, Mohalla Dayalpura, Karnal .....Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others ....Respondents Present: Mr. C.B. Goel, Advocate and Mr. Nitin Jain, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. O.P. Sharma, Addl. A.G., Haryana for respondent Nos. 1 to 5. None for respondent Nos.6 to 9. CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? No 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? No 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? No -.- K. KANNAN J. 1. The writ petition examines the correctness of the orders passed by the authority under the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation Act, 1954). The order came to be passed after a judicial intervention and a remand from this Court in LPA No.88 of 1974 directing the Chief Settlement Commissioner for hearing the appeal filed by the 6th respondent herein, Sardari Lal, against the order passed by the Assistant Settlement Commissioner dated 07.05.1964. After remand from the High Court, the Chief Settlement Commissioner had accepted the appeal filed by Sardarli Lal and he had directed that the property could be transferred in his name as per the Rules. It held that C.W.P No.4070 of 1987 -2- the writ petitioner before this Court Ram Piyari was in unauthorized occupation and had never been recognized by the Department as a lawful occupant, notwithstanding the payment of rent allegedly made by her for the year 1956 as per the receipt produced by her. The correctness of this decision was challenged before the Government by the present petitioner, which affirmed the view taken by the Chief Settlement Commissioner. The correctness of this order again is the subject of challenge before this Court. 2. The 6th respondent-husband Sardari Lal had claimed that the property in EPB No.1348 situate at Karnal had been originally in occupation of her mother Maya Devi and one Nanak Chand some time in the year 1956. Nanak Chand left the premises and the same was occupied by Dharam Chand. By an order of Assistant Settlement Commissioner (for short “ASC”), Karnal dated 04.05.1959, it was stated that Dharam Chand was an unauthorized occupant and Maya Devi was alone the claimant-allottee and ordered the transfer of the property in favour of Maya Devi by way of compensation under the 1954 Act. It appears however that the Regional Settlement Commissioner had directed the ASC to rehear the parties and pass a fresh order. Consequently, the ASC passed an order again on 07.05.1964 that since the property was in the occupation of more than one person, it could not be transferred to any one of them and should be disposed of by auction. This order was challenged in appeal, which reversed the decision. Dharam Chand and his wife Ram Pyari, the petitioner herein filed a revision against the order passed by the ASC dated 07.05.1964, which was dismissed as not maintainable. An application filed C.W.P No.4070 of 1987 -3- independently under Section 33 of the Act was also dismissed by the Secretary on 23.10.1967. It was at that time Ram Pyari and her husband Dharam Chand filed a writ petition against the order of the Secretary, which was also dismissed and when the order was challenged in LPA, the Division Bench had directed that the matter was to be considered by the Chief Settlement Commissioner and an appropriate decision taken. Before the Chief Settlement Commissioner, Sardari Lal, who claimed the property after the death of his mother, who was an allottee, contended that where a property was in the hands of more than one person, it should be offered to the person, whose gross compensation was highest. Although Rule 30 that provided for a manner of disposal of the property where there was more than one claimant was repealed, it could not have affected the rights of parties in pending cases. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has had an occasion to deal with the situation in a case reported in Joint Secretary to Govt of India v Khillu Ram AIR 1975 SC 2275 that held that Rule 30 itself does not regulate the procedure for settlement of disputes concerning the right and the deletion of such rule cannot affect pending actions. The first order passed on 07.05.1964 that with the deletion of Rule 30, the property would require to be auctioned was, therefore, not correct and would be required to be set aside. The Chief Settlement Commissioner on remand was actually passing an order setting aside the decision already taken by the ASC, Sh. O.P. Bhatia dated 07.05.1964. It had the effect of restoring the order passed by the ASO, Karnal on 04.05.1959 in respect of which it had been already held that Ram Pyari and her husband were in unauthorized occupation and Maya Devi as an allottee C.W.P No.4070 of 1987 -4- was entitled to obtain a transfer by way of compensation. The Chief Settlement Commissioner himself has noted that the Survey Report placed on P-172 on the property file B.1348 Dayalpura, Karnal revealed that Dharam Chand had occupied a portion of property, which was earlier in occupation of Nanak Chand without the permission of the Department. He noticed that there had been interpolation made to make it appear as though that the occupation of all persons “excepting Dharam Chand” from the category of unauthorized occupants and he interpreted the interpolation in the context of the statement given by Dharam Chand himself, which he had recorded at page 120 of the file that he occupied the portion, which was originally allotted to Nanak Chand.” In other words, the Dharam Chand admitted that he was in unauthorized occupation in the premises vacated by Nanak Chand. It was still necessary to reconcile the fact that Dharam Chand paid Rs.5/- to the Department in May, 1956 as rent, as if to say that the occupation was not unauthorized. The Chief Settlement Commissioner explained this also by finding that the receipt itself reveals that the rent was paid on behalf of Nanak Chand and even if that receipt contained the name of Dharam Chand was to be given any credibility, the lone receipt without any order by any competent authority for acceptance of the rent would not make his possession in authorized occupation. 3. I find the decision of the Assistant Settlement Commissioner to be well considered and he has made reference to factual decisions emanating from the records and the Financial Commissioner in revision has had no difficulty in affirming the decision. For the same reasons as found expressed by the Chief Settlement Commissioner as well as the C.W.P No.4070 of 1987 -5- Financial Commissioner, I would hold that the petitioner is not entitled to seek a claim in relation to the property and the writ petition challenging the same cannot survive for consideration in this writ petition. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE December 01, 2011 Pankaj*