CWP No. 3551 of 1990 CWP No. 1427 of 1988 1 CWP No. 1428 of 1988 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No. 3551 of 1990 Date of decision May 17,2011 Harmohan Singh and others .........Petitioners Vs. The Chief Settlement Commissioner and others ..........Respondents CWP No. 1427 of 1988 Atma Ram and another ....Petitioners Versus The Chief Settlement Commissioner Haryana and others .....Respondents CWP No. 1428 of 1988 Atma Ram and others ....Petitioners Versus The Chief Settlement Commissioner Haryana and others .....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN Present: Mr. H. N. Mehtani, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr.R.N.Raina, Advocate, and Mr.Daman Dhir, Advocate,for the petitioners in CWP No. 3551 of 1990. Mr. Karminder Singh, Advocate for respondent No.3. Mr.K.S.Sivia, DAG, Haryana, for respondents No.2 to 4. Mr. H. N. Mehtani, Advocate for the petitioners. K. Kannan, J (oral) CMs No.12198 & 17700 of 2010 1. CM No.12198 of 2010 relates to bringing on CWP No. 3551 of 1990 CWP No. 1427 of 1988 2 CWP No. 1428 of 1988 record the cancellation of a power of attorney by Petitioner No.1, in favour of one Ashok Kumar and CM No.17700 of 2010 is for impleadment of all the legal heirs of deceased Balwant Singh, who was said to be the original allottee. The application for cancellation of power of attorney has already been allowed. The first petitioner is represented through an independent counsel and petitioners No.2 & 3 have engaged another counsel. While all the petitioners could have a counsel or a group of counsel, the petitioners themselves cannot be represented through two different counsel with any possibility of conflict. The first petitioner and petitioners No.2 & 3 shall be either heard together or one or the other arrayed as respondents so that there is no cause for embarrrassment or conflict at the proceedings. I, therefore, direct the first petitioner who is represented through Sh.R.N.Raina, Advocate, to be arrayed as respondent No.5. The writ petition No.3551 of 1990 shall be continued by petitioners No.2 & 3 while the first petitioner shall have the benefit of representation through an independent counsel. The registry shall carry out the amendment in the memo of parties accordingly. 2. There is also an application for impleadment of the legal heirs of Balwant Singh. The basis of the plea for impleadment is that out of 79 kanals and 4 marlas of land of Balwant Singh in Village Birdhana, that had been originally allotted to Balwant Singh, the first petitioner has fractional share that comrises of 21 kanals, the 2nd petitioner 21 kanals and 3rd petitioner 26 kanals 2 malras. The balance of 11 kanals and 2 marlas belonged to all the legal heirs of Balwant Singh. The claim in the application is for impleadment of all other legal heirs for an effective adjudication. 3. The application is resisted by petitioners No.2 & 3 stating that the point in dispute in the writ petition is with reference to only CWP No. 3551 of 1990 CWP No. 1427 of 1988 3 CWP No. 1428 of 1988 the properties, exclusively owned in the fractional shares referred to above, among petitioners No.1, 2 & 3, of whom the first petitioner is now ordered to be arrayed as respondent No.5. There is no contest or relevance of an adjudication over 11 kanals and 2 marlas of land which are admittedly in the joint possession of all the legal heirs of Balwant Singh. The writ petition does not decide the issue of title and any decision that it makes through these orders, will have a bearing only for considering the correctness or otherwise of orders which are impugned in the writ petitions. I would not want any inter se adjudication of title among the heirs of the allottee to be brought before this Court. If there is ever a dispute, the parties shall obtain appropriate adjudication in independent civil proceedings. I will not, therefore, find any reason to accommodate the pleas of the other legal heirs of Balwant Singh, to be brought on record as parties to this writ petition. The application for impleadment is consequently dismissed. CM No. 18135 of 2010 and CM No. 33229 of 2002 4. These applications are filed by the persons claiming to be some of the legal representatives of the deceased Balwant Singh. They seek for impleadment on the ground that the respective petitioners in the above two writ petitions have sought for quashing of the impugned orders staking their claims under some transactions of sales brought through persons who were not entitled to sell the property. The applicant's contentions therefore is that the petitioners have no legal right over the property to seek for the rights in the writ petitions. The other basis for the applicant's contention is that the petitioners in writ petitions in the writ petitions are claiming through transactions brought about by Surinder Singh Power of Attorney of some of the applicants but the Power of Attorney has itself been cancelled in the year 2010 on alleged acts of fraud. All these contentions are stoutly refuted by the Senior Counsel CWP No. 3551 of 1990 CWP No. 1427 of 1988 4 CWP No. 1428 of 1988 appearing on behalf of the writ petitioners through oral submissions, although no written objections are filed. 5. All the writ petitions are with reference to a property that had been originally allotted to one Balwant Singh. The subject matter involved in all the writ petitions contains a challenge to the orders passed by the Chief Settlement Commissioner on various dates cancelling the allotment made to the original allottee under the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabiliation) Act, 1954. The cancellation was made on the purported basis that the properties were Shamlat deh and that they were to be enjoyed for common benefit of villagers and they ought not to have been allotted as a evacuee property capable of being allotted under the 1954 Act. What saved the day for the original allottee was an amendment brought to the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act of 1961 to the definition of Section 2(g) which excepted through clause 2 (i-a) land which had been allotted to any person by the Rehabilitation Department of the State Government after the commencement of the Act but on or before 9th day of July, 1985. The contention was that the allotment was prior to the cut off date namely 9.7.1985 and therefore was not shamlat deh. This amendment which was introduced by the Haryana Act 13 of 1966 was the subject of challenge in a batch of writ petitions filed at the instance of the various Gram Panchayats and amendment was upheld by a Bench of this Court in Gram Panchayat of Village Kum-Kalan Vs. State of Punjab and others (2010) 3 RCR Civil 729. This issue was also brought about subsequently through another batch of writ petitions before this court in Sohan Singh Vs. the Director of Panchayat and others in CWP No. 4138 of 1987 and a Bench of this Court held that claims of various persons making right over the property to the exclusion of the claims by Panchayat were perfectly CWP No. 3551 of 1990 CWP No. 1427 of 1988 5 CWP No. 1428 of 1988 tenable and allowed all the writ petitions. 6. In the line of the decisions referred to above all the impugned orders are liable to be quashed. The impugned orders are set aside and all the writ petitions are allowed. 7. The decisions rendered in the writ petitions will not have any bearing to the dispute inter se amongst the parties in relation to the property which was the subject of original allotment. Even while dismissing the applications for impleadment, I hold the applicants are entitled to contend that the orders that petitioners have secured in the writ petitions will not be used against them to deny to them what they convass for. Any such dispute amongst the parties shall be dealt with in an independent forum and these writ petitions must be understood as making an adjudication only as regards the validity of the cancellation of the orders of allotment. The title to the property amongst the parties are kept open for independent adjudication. (K.KANNAN) JUDGE May 17,2011 archana