491 0 COCP NO1195of2010 1 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARHe DATE OF DECISION 12 01002011 HarpaISingh eeePetitioner VERSUS 1 IAS and others 0 e e 0 0 CORAM C5 HONBLE MReJUSTICEPERMOD KOHLI I Z PRESENT MrTSDoabia SrAdvocatewith 2 MrGKSaini Advocatefor thepetitioner 7 MrArun Nehra Advocatefor no C MrlCSDadwal Advocatefor no2 to 5 Z Mrumeet MahajanSrAdvocatewith CO MrLBhalla Advocatefor nol and 15 W2 Z PermodKohIi J all Om Thesecontempt havebeen set in motionfor alleged of theorderdated203961 passed in CWP No840 of 1960 ee titled as Singhand othersvs JagatSinghand others Briefly statedthe facts relevantfor purposeof presenpetition are that Sunder Singhand Sawan Singhowned some land 111 District now partof West Pakistan It is alleged that a partofthis land was mortgagedwith possessionln favour of singhson of 7 Uma 2013.06.13 12: 39 Scanned True Copy of Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:18 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 492 4 COCP NO1195of2010 2 JhandaSinghSurinderKaur of InderSinghJhandaSinghson of KartarSinghandBhagSingh son of Buta SinghAfter thepartition ofthe country SunderSinghwas allotted28 standardacres and 1 unitsof landand SawanSinghwasallotted24 standardacres and2 12units of land in villageMauawal District Ludhianaon quasi permanentbasisin reserve categories as no claim ln respectof those had been flled This allotmentwason thebasisof some Jamabandientriessaidto be received m C fromPakistanIt is furthermentionedthatout ofthe landallottedto Sunder 0 Singlpossessionof 21 standardacres and 4 4 unitsand out of Sawan 0 SinghsaIlotment possessionof 9 standardacres and 5 4 units I was 0 deliveredto thepetitioners ln lieu oftheir mortgagerights the year 1953 lIl I and regular sanads were alsoissuedbytheRehabilitationauthorities in this Z respect tr One Abnashi Lal lodged a that the Were 111 I unauthorizedpossessionof land allottedto SunderSinghand Sawan SinghOn thiscomplaint Officer cancelledthe allotmentvide Z orderdated272 1959 It 1S alleged that this cancellation without any was ClO notice to Singhand others An appealandthereafter a revision 3 z tlled by Singhwere dismissedby the Chief Settlement 6Rural OIl 73 1960 and May1960 Petition tlled under Section 33 of the Persons and RehabilitationAct Act NoA4 of 19549to the CentralGovernment was CmeW alsodismissed of the aboveorders Singhflled CWP No840 of 1960titled as Singhand others VS JagatSinghand othersbeforetheHighCourtofPunjab and Haryana This writ petition was allowedvide dated 203961 and the order of cancellation of Uma 2013.06.13 12: 39 Scanned True Copy of Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:18 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 1 493 l1 1 COCP NO01195of2010 3 allotmentpassedby the authoritiesbelow were set aside Relevant observationsofthe HighCourt are noticedhereunderl After theleamedcounselfor theparties I am of the view that the orderspassedby the Rehabilitation authoritieswere invalid and that the allotmentin the names of SunderSinghand SawanSinghwas made on thebasisofthe Jamabandientriesreceived om Pakistan m r and it is not that such an allotmentcould be 0 made to therules 0 I havealready held abovethat the I t5 were not in provisionsof that the allotteeshad died on I their way to Indiaduring the partition of the country Z SlnCe theydid not reachIndia Now the question anses Ct whethertheycome within the deflnition of the word displacedperson as given in the notiflcationdated 87 1949 issued by the of Rehabilitation Z 6Pa8e 193 OftheLandResettlement Manual 00 A barereading ofthe definitionwould show thatboth Vn Z these persons would be covered by this definition CL becausetheyhadabandoned or were madethe abandon their ln Pakistan It 1S not necessarythat theyshould t actuallyreachIndia Even if they had been killed on 4ee their way of India after their land tn Pakistan theywould still be covered bythis definition From what has been statedabov e it is clear that the allotmentmade 111favour of SunderSinghand Sawan Uma 2013.06.13 12: 39 Scanned True Copy of Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:18 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 494 1 L1 COCP NO195 of2010 C 1 Singhwas quitevalid and to the rules As regards the ofthe allottedlandwhetherit was correctlygivenbythe Rehabilitationauthoritiesto the it hasbeenlaid downin para 1719page73of theIandResettlementManual thatthe in such circumstanceswould begivento themortgagesprovided sufficient proofof the transaction exists Since the m r revenue records received from Pakistan themselves 0 tnentionedthemortgages in favourof the 111 0 my opinion the had beenvalidlygiven to I 0 them bytheauthorities In view of what I havesaid above I would acceptthis Z petitionand quashthe ordersdated27 1959 73960 and 73 960 mentionedaboveIn the circumstancesof I thiscase howeverI would leavethepartiesto beartheir t own costs in thisCourt Z Petitioner HarpalSinghand others the land 111questlOll QO vide varioussale deedsexecutedin theyear 1989 It is statedthatsecond 7 Z parcelof land which was ownedby Jiwan SinghLehnaSinghSharan ll Singhand Sohan Singh111Pakistanwas also with SinghAfler partitiontheland to thesepersonswas alsoaIlotted by the Rehabilitation to Singhat Village 4eeeee Tehsil SamanaDistrlct Patiala This allotmentwas also by SheeshaSinghand othersin theyear 1983andthe allotmentwas canceIled bythe Managing Offlcer Rehabilitation The cancellation of allotmentorder was upto SupremeCourt and the Uma 2013.06.13 12: 39 Scanned True Copy of Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:18 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document A 495 1 e j J 1 5 COCP NO1195 of2010 failecl It isalleged that SheeshaSinghand otherson thebasis in of land situatedat Patialamadea to the revenue authoritiesat Ludhiana for entering mutation changeof with respectto land situatedat VillageMattewara Ludhiana CircleOftlcer forwardedthe case to AssistantCollector 1 Grade District Revenue officerlLudhiana The AssistantCollector l Grade Ludhiana observed that thereis no link between both the lands ie situatedat Ludhiana and Patiala as the same were allottedto different 0 at differentplacesHe passed an orderdated2551999 0 0 mutation on thebasis dated2031961 in CWP No840 of 1960 I 9 Order mutatlon bythe Assistant Collector came to be I by SheeshaSinghand others before ShSCSandhu IAS Z Collector6DC9Ludhianain Revenue AppealNol30 of 198889 relating 2 to Muation 1766of villageMattewara District Ludhiana The Collector vide his order dated 133200 l declaredprivate to be the C3 benetIciariesof estate of SunderSinghand SawanSinghand ordered Z transferof land situated at Ludhiana in their favour Present 0 the order of Collector before ShDP ReddyIAS Divisional mmo z CommissionerPatiala Division Patiala The appealwas dismissedvide tl orderdated 5 1001 A revision againstthe said orders dated 1332001 and 511 2 001 beforetheFinancialCommissioner Revenuel Punjab alsoresultedin dismissalThe ofthe is thatthe FinancialCommissionerhas decidedthe revision in contraventionto the e directionscontainedin the orderdated 203 1961 passedbythisCourt in CWPNo840 of1960 It is also noticedthat the orderpassedbythe FinancialCommissioner Uma 2013.06.13 12: 39 Scanned True Copy of Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:18 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 496 Jr COCP NO195 of2010 6 was bythe beforethisCourtin CWP No6983 of 2004 titled as Kirpal e SinghVS Financial Commissioner Taxation Punjab andothersThis writ petition was dismissedas withdrawnvide orderdated 1122006 with liberty to seek any otherremedyin accordance with law After thedismissalofthe writ petitionprivate gotthe mutation attestedin respectof land situatedat Ludhianain their favouron r the of orderspassed bytherevenue authoritiesreferredto above It 0 1S also alleged that at the time of sanction of mutation some other person C the actualLambardar Petitionersthereafterfiled a civil suit I C5 themutation sanctionedin favourof SheeshaSinghandothers I ln the Court of Civil JudgeJrDivisior Ludhiana the orders Z dated 1332001 and 5 12001 which are claimedto have beenpassed Ill violationof the dated 2031961 in CWP No840 of 1960 It is I common case of the parties that of the has been 08 stayed in the civil suit Civil suit is pending It is rther case of the that Sheesha Singhvide threesale deeds sold land situatedat 7 Z Ludhiana for which separate civil SUltsllave beenfiled by It is also alleged that even during of civil suit SheeshaSinghsold land to one Sham Sunder Kothari by fraudulentmanner by an by the in respectof handing over the possession of the land situatedat VilIageMattewara Ludhiana A 1n this regardhas been made with the policeA criminal 4enee is also said to have beenfiled It is alleged that SheeshaSingh and othersthrough GPA sold land in favour of Mls Future Colonizersand ConstructionPvt Ltd Ludhianavideagreementdated832010 Sum and substance of the allegationsis that the Financial Uma 2013.06.13 12: 39 Scanned True Copy of Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:18 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 497 1 i 1e7 COCP NO1195 of2010 7 Commissionerhas the orderin revisionin violation of the court orderdated 20 1961 The relevantobservationsof the order of the FinancialCommissionerwhich are saidto be are noticedhere underl I haveheardthe arguments of both the counselsand carefully gone the recordof the case I would agreewith the counsel for the that the 0 of the Honble HighCourt dated 203 961 C cannot possiblybe the basis on which this mutation I C5 which transfers of the land from the I in interest of the present om Z that of mortgagees with into owners with can be sanctionedA plainwadingof the I orderofthe HonbleHighCourtshowsthatl 08 1 the High Court has held that the lll interest ofthe hada rightto allotmentofthis em Z land in India as persons and its cancellation was invalid 2Nhe in interest of thereby retaln their rights111 the land as mortgageesand therefore their interest in it was establishedand no Cm wheresuch interestwas affectedcould be canied out without givingthema hearingThe Courthas held that the beingtheir mortgagees and be called their successors in interest It is obvious thatthis succession interest refersto interestas Uma 2013.06.13 12: 39 Scanned True Copy of Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:18 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 498 1 7 COCP NO195 of2010 8 In the event of the deathof the original allottees Sunder Singhand Sawan Singhand the restoration ofalIotmentofthis landto them theywould havetwo sets of successors in interest The first would be their naturalheirs or If any who would succeedto the of this land and thepresent 1 who would continue as mortgagees in 0 Surelythis observationof the HighCoun 0 cannot be read as to quality C5 of rightsthatthe hadin theland from that of with to owners with Z It is clear thereforethat the order of the HighCourt r preservesand protectsthe interest of the to I the extent thattheyare mortgagees lll of the a5 Iand It cannot be construedto convert this interestinto superior ie with 99 em Z MrDoabia leamedSr Counsel on behalfof the has argued that the FinancialCommissionercould not have returneda findingcontraryto the of theHighCourt when the of the HighCourt was noticed by the Financial Commissionerin his order dated5A2004 His referenceis to the observationsthat the HighCourt order onlyprotectsthe interest of the C thereinto theextent thattheyare mortgagees in ofthe IandIt cannot be construedto convert thisinterestinto superior 1e ownership with Again to thejudgment ofthe High Court it is arguedthat HighCourt has retumedfindings that the allotment Uma 2013.06.13 12: 39 Scanned True Copy of Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:18 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 499 1 3 l1 COCP NO1195 of2010 9 111favourof SunderSinghand SawanSinghwas madeon the basisof Jamabandientries received from Pakistan and thus the Financial Commissionercouldnot haveheldotherwise MrlVehra learnedcounsel on behalf of no however argued that the FinancialCommissionerbonafidely the order of the HighCourt and it does not amount to a deliberateand r wilful disobedienceof theorder His Rlrthercontentionis that the Financial 0 Commissionerhad the privilege to the order on the basisof the C facts on record It is also statedthatthe Financial Commissionerhas not I C5 goneintothe To supporthiscontention I following observationsofthe FinancialCommissionerare refened to Z 7As regardsthe 1Ssue of the of the r I am of the view that this is not issue in the presentlitigationIf the wish to claim 08 rights on the basis of of mortgagetheyare freeto do so in the legal vma Z forum The factualissue of of mortgageof e this land neednot be gone lnto for the purpose ofthis petition as thisissueis not relevant It is also the case of the that the order of Financial Commissionerwas bythe in separate writ petitlOll beingCWP No6983 of 2004 and this writ petition was dismissedas CV withdrawn with libertyto avail of any other remedywhich may be available to them vide order dated 1122006 and thereaftera civil suit has been filed bythe It is thuscontended that underthese circumstancesfilingofthe contemptpetitionis nothingbut Uma 2013.06.13 12: 39 Scanned True Copy of Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:18 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 500 41 1 COCP NO1195 of2010 10 an abuseof the process of law The validityof the orderof the Financial CommissionerandauthoritieSbelow are subject matter of in the civil suit andthusthepresentcontemptpetition is liableto bedismissed I haveheardleamedcounselfor theparties at lengthIt is true thatthe HighCourtwhiledecidingCWP No840 of 1960set sidetheorderspassed bythe authoritiesbelow andheld thatSunder Singhand SawanSinghfall e r within the definitionof Persons It hasalso beenheld that the 0 possession was validlygivento thembythe authorltiesThe HighCourt 0 further observedthat the can be called as successors in 0 lnterest beingmortgageesof the land However on that basis the I petitioners cannot claim a rightof Mr Doabialeamedcounsel Z has referredto a of the Honble Court in the caseof State of Punjaband another vs SurajParkash Kapuretce AIR 1963 I Supreme Court 507 whereinit hasbeen heldbythe Honble ApexCourt 08 that the sanadconfers absoluterightIt is submittedon behalf of the 7 that since sanad was issuedby the authoritiesit confers Z rightin favourofthe mortgagees andthus theSndingsrecorded tl bytheFinancialCommissionerthatthe mortgagees do not becomeowners amountsto contemptofthe court I am in with thesubmission of Ieamedcounsel The nature of sanadalonecan decidewhetherit confers title over the land or not Relevantobservationsof the Honble 4ea Courtrelied upon byMr Doabiareadas underl That apar on 23 1956 the Central Govemmentissued a sanad to the respondents conferrin an absoluterighton themin respect of the said properties Thoughthe sanad was issued to thefilingofthe petitionit was beforethe petition came to be of by the High Court At the time theHighCourt of the petitionthe limited rightof the had blossomedinto a Uma 2013.06.13 12: 39 Scanned True Copy of Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:18 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 1 501 6J COCP NO1195 of2010 11 fullfledged propertyright ln the circumstancesof the case theHighCourt justified in taking note of that fact From whatever this case is Iookedat lt lS obviousthat the hate sufflclent interest 111 the propertyto sustaintheir petitionunderArt 226 ofthe Constitution 15 From the barereadingof this parait is apparentthat the sanad referred to by Court itself conferred absoluterightand thus the sanad the Honble held that by virtue of such r sanad thelimitedrightofthe hadblossomedinto a fulledged 0 0 propertyrightNo such documenthasbeen placed on record111thepresent I case to establishthat sanad relied upon by had conferred C5 I rightsupon the mortgageesIn any event thereis no pOSltlve Z flndingofthe HighCourtthattheright maturedintothefull 2 fledged title byanystatutoryprovisionor by a documentissuedbythe r authoritiesincluding Sanador byanyothermeans Thus theobservations 05 ofthe FinancialCommissionercannot besaidto becontraryto the oftheHighCourt dated2031961 passedin CWP No840 of 1960titled as Z Singhand othersVS JagatSinghand others In any case for invoking contempt it hasto be establishedthat the act is a wilful and deliberatedisobedienceNeitherany such are madeln the presentcontemptpetition nor it can beinferredfrom the bythe authoritiesbelow including thatofthe FinancialCommissionerthat therehasbeenwilful disobedienceof theorder Honble Court in C KapildeoPrasad Sah and others vs Stateof Bihar and others19991 7 Supreme Court Cases 569 has held that for a person for it has to be establishedthat thereis wilhil disobedienceof the judgment or order ofthe court I do not find any such wilful disobediencein thepresentcase Uma 2013.06.13 12: 39 Scanned True Copy of Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:18 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document e 802 11 C21 1 COCP NO1195 of2010 12 r1 For the above reasons this contemptpetition1S dismissed t when the has alreadyavailed the remedyof e 9 9 the order of the FinancialCommissionerafter the writ petition fiIedbeforethisCourt Dismissed C 2t 1 m PERMOD KOHLII JUDGE 0 Pronouncedonl U 12102011 MFK I Le1 0 NOTEWhether referredto Reporter or not2YESINO Z 08 v NI 4 ir n2 10 4 1101 1 1 Uma 2013.06.13 12: 39 Scanned True Copy of Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:18 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document