CWP No. 320 of 2006 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No. 320 of 2006 Date of decision: December 24, 2008 Khazan Chand Midha ... Petitioner versus Commissioner and Secretary to Govt. Haryana, Rehabilitation Deptt., and others ... Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Hemant Gupta. Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nawab Singh. Present: Mr. Jagdish Manchanda, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Sunil Nehra, Assistant Advocate General, Haryana for the respondents. -- Hemant Gupta, J. The challenge in the present writ petition is to the order dated 27.01.2004, Annexure P-7, whereby Commissioner and Secretary to Government Haryana, Rehabilitation Department, exercising the power of Central Government under section 33 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954, set aside the allotment of evacuee property to Surat Lal alias Surat Singh and also found that the purchasers from the said allottee are not entitled to be protected. One Surat Lal alias Surat Singh filed claim for land to the extent of 117 Acres 7 Kanals 3 Marlas alleged to have been abandoned by CWP No. 320 of 2006 [2] him in village Saidali, Shahbajpura, Bawalgarh, Naushera, Tehsil Minchanabad, Pakistan. Allotment of 43 standard acre 15.1/4 units of land was made vide order dated 27.10.1952 but on receipt of the revenue record from Pakistan, the claimant was not found to have abandoned any land in the said village in Pakistan. Thereafter, the order of cancellation of allotment were passed between 28.01.1957 and 29.03.1962. No appeal or revision was filed by the allottee up to the year 1976 when he died. On 19.12.1978, Bhagwan Dass s/o Surat Lal made an application for possession of land allotted in the name of his father. A proposal was made by the Additional Settlement Commissioner on 21.07.1981 for allotment of alternative land on which alternative land was allotted on 31.07.1981. The said allotment was after partition of the evacuee share of the shamlat land. The allottee through his attorney sold land to various persons. The vendees have filed separate writ petitions i.e., CWP No. 9711 of 2003, 9443 of 2004, 6751 of 2004 and 4590 of 2005, which are being decided vide separate orders of even date. It has been found in the impugned order that the land was originally allotted on the oral statement of the allottee and on verification of Panchayat. But after receipt of revenue record from Pakistan, it was revealed that the allottee did not possess any land in Pakistan. Such allotment was cancelled after notice to the allottee and the cancellation order has attained finality. It has been further found that in pursuance of the order of allotment, possession was not taken by the allottee and the order of cancellation of allotment dated 9.11.1962 was not challenged. In fact, Surat Lal had also given statement, as is evident from order dated 31.05.1971 of the Settlement Commissioner-cum-Chief Settlement Commissioner, New Delhi, that he did not possess any CWP No. 320 of 2006 [3] agricultural land in Pakistan. Learned Commissioner has rightly returned a finding that the allotment was cancelled after notice to Surat Lal and after Surat Lal asked for the adjournment. It was also found that a land racket was operating in the State and the land was allotted on incorrect / improper verification. The allotment of land was cancelled which was made on an application moved by the son of Surat Lal after the death of Surat Lal. Since Surat Lal has not proved himself to be in possession of any land, the allotment was rightly cancelled. Though the said order was never challenged, but son of Surat Lal moved an application for allotment of alternative land. Such application could not have been entertained as allotment of the land itself stood cancelled. In view of the above, we do not find that the reasoning given by the learned Commissioner and Secretary to Government Haryana, Rehabilitation Department, exercising the power of Central Government, suffers from any patent illegality or irregularity warranting interference by this Court in writ jurisdiction. Consequently, present writ petition is dismissed. ( Hemant Gupta) Judge December 24, 2008 ( Nawab Singh) ks Judge