CWP No.7050 of 1988 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No.7050 of 1988 Date of decision:18.03.2011 Rajwant Singh ..... Petitioner Versus Financial Commissioner & Secretary to Govt. Punjab, Revenue Department, Chandigarh and others ..... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIVE BHALLA Present: Mr.Amit Jain, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.S.S.Sahu, AAG, Punjab for respondents no.1 to 3. ***** RAJIVE BHALLA, J.(ORAL) The petitioner impugns an order dated 31.05.1988, passed by the Financial Commissioner Revenue & Secretary to Government, Punjab, Rehabilitation Department, cancelling the allotment of property no.2154-58/8, made to the petitioner. The petitioner filed an application on 20.03.1974 before the Tehsildar (Sales), Amritsar praying that evacuee property no.2154-58/8 situated at Kila Bhangian near Mandir Kali Mata, Amritsar be transferred to him as it is in his exclusive possession since 1957. The Teshildar (Sales) allowed the application and allotted the property @ Rs.600/- per sq.yard. The petitioner challenged the rate of allotment before the Settlement Commissioner, Punjab. Vide order dated 31.01.1983, the appeal was allowed and price of the property was reduced from Rs.600/- per sq.yard to Rs.268 per sq.yard. One CWP No.7050 of 1988 -2- Mohinder Pal Singh filed a revision before the Chief Settlement Commissioner, complaining that the land cannot be allotted to the petitioner as he is a Government servant. The revision was dismissed on 10.04.1985. Mohinder Pal thereafter filed a revision before the Financial Commissioner, exercising powers of the Central Government under Section 33 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954. The Financial Commissioner accepted the revision and set aside the allotment made in favour of the petitioner by holding that as a Government servant is prohibited from carrying on any private business the allotment made to the petitioner is illegal. Counsel for the petitioner states that the Financial Commissioner has rightly held that a Government servant cannot be allotted commercial property but as the petitioner was in possession of the land in dispute before he entered Government service, the reasons assigned by the Financial Commissioner for cancelling allotment do not apply to the petitioner. It is pointed that the petitioner was in possession in 1957, before he entered Government service, in the year 1959. It is further submitted that the petitioner is a displaced person and a Scheduled Caste and is even otherwise entitled to allotment under the Punjab Package Deal Properties (Disposal) Act, 1976. It is further pointed that Mohinder Pal, respondent no.4 has filed an affidavit deposing therein that he does not oppose the allotment made to the petitioner. Counsel for the State of Punjab submits that the petitioner is CWP No.7050 of 1988 -3- not a displaced person and is therefore, not entitled to allotment much less allotment of commercial land. As per the petitioner's own admission and as noticed by the Financial Commissioner, the land is being used for commercial purposes. The petitioner being a Government servant, is prohibited from carrying on private business. The Financial Commissioner therefore, rightly set aside the allotment made in favour of the petitioner. I have heard counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order. The reasons recorded by the Financial Commissioner, while setting aside the allotment made to the petitioner are legal and valid. A Government servant, is prohibited from carrying on private business and cannot claim allotment of evacuee property on the plea that he is running a business. The questions however that should have been considered by the Financial Commissioner while setting aside the allotment are: - a) Whether the petitioner is a displaced person ? b) Whether the petitioner is a member of a Scheduled Caste entitled to allotment under the Punjab Package Deal Properties (Disposal) Act, 1976. ? c) Whether the petitioner was doing the business of selling firewood before he came into Government service and if so, its effect ? These pertinent questions have a significant bearing on the rights of the petitioner but have neither been considered nor answered. The mere fact that Mohinder Pal, the complainant may have withdrawn CWP No.7050 of 1988 -4- his complaint is irrelevant as the question is one of illegal allotment and not one of irregular allotment. In this view of the matter, the writ petition is allowed, the impugned order is set aside and the matter is remitted to the Financial Commissioner, Revenue, Punjab, to peruse the entire record, examine the matter afresh and after due consideration of the questions framed in the preceding paragraph decide the matter afresh and in accordance with law. This order shall not be construed to be an expression of opinion that observations made by the the Financial Commissioner, Revenue are incorrect. The petitioner shall be permitted to produce such material/evidence as may be necessary for him to establish his claim. Parties are directed to appear before the Financial Commissioner and Secretary to Government, Punjab, on 02.05.2011. 18.03.2011 [ RAJIVE BHALLA ] shamsher JUDGE CWP No.7050 of 1988 -5-