LETTERS PARENT APPEAL NO. 312 OF 2011(O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. DATE OF DECISION: April 25 , 2011. Parties Name Balbir Kaur ...APPELLANT. VERSUS Financial Commissioner, Revenue, Punjab, Chandigarh, and others ...RESPONDENTS CORAM: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jasbir Singh Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rakesh Kumar Garg PRESENT: Mr. G.S. Nagra, Advocate, for the appellant. Mr. Manohar Lall, Addl. A.G., Punjab; Jasbir Singh, J. (oral) JUDGMENT This appeal has been filed against an order dated May 13, 2010, passed by the learned Single Judge dismissing Civil Writ Petition No. 1613 of 1989, filed by the appellant. As per facts on record, petitioner's grand father Shri Sadhu Singh, by filing an affidavit that he had migrated from Pakistan, got allotted a constructed site along with vacant area. After allotment, a reference was initiated by the Tehsildar to cancel that allotment LETTERS PARENT APPEAL NO. 312 OF 2011(O&M) -2- on a ground that Shri Sadhu Singh had filed a wrong affidavit and he has not migrated from Pakistan. Reliance was placed upon a report made by the lower revenue staff in that regard. Reference was rejected. One Hazara Singh, respondent No. 2 filed an application under Section 33 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954. The same was accepted by the Financial Commissioner and Secretary to Government of Punjab( respondent No. 1), vide order dated August 30, 1988, against which the above said writ petition was filed. Relevant portion of that order reads thus: “6. I have carefully considered the arguments advanced by the counsel for the parties and have gone also through the record. The record shows that Sadhu Singh, late father of Surjit Singh, respondent had applied for transfer of Taur No. 106, situated in Village Babua, Tehsil Nawanshahr vide his application dated the 27th March, 1961. It was stated by him that he was a displaced person and he had also filed an affidavit to this effect. However, the report of the Tehsildar Nawanshahr dated the 10th March, 1986 brought out on the basis of local enquiries that Sadhu Singh was not a Displaced person and that he also owned a house in the Village since the pre-partition period. Surjit Singh has not been able to controvert this report of the Tehsildar, with the result that the conclusion is unavoidable that Sadhu Singh had tendered a wrong affidavit and had got the tour transfer in his name through misrepresentation. A transaction based on misrepresentation does not deserve to be LETTERS PARENT APPEAL NO. 312 OF 2011(O&M) -3- sustained even though considerable time has elapsed since the transfer had been effected. I am, however, of the view that in case Sadhu Singh or his son Surjit Singh, the present respondent had in the meantime raised any substantial construction of the tour, it would be a hardship on him to ask him to undo such construction at this late stage. Therefore, while accepting the present revision, it is also ordered that any portion of the plot in dispute which has been covered by construction by the respondent should be allowed to remain within. The balance are of the disputed plot should be disposed of afresh by the Department, in accordance with the rules.” The learned Single Judge noted that there is nothing on record to show that the original allottee had migrated from Pakistan. Taking note of the same, writ petition was dismissed. At the time of arguments, nothing has been shown to the contrary. Vide order dated August 30, 1988, respondent No. 1 had rather favoured the petitioner, who is grand daughter of Shri Sadhu Singh, by ordering that the area under construction be allowed to be retained by the appellant. No legal infirmity has been indicated in the impugned order. Dismissed. ( Jasbir Singh ) Judge (Rakesh Kumar Garg) Judge April 25, 2011. DKC