Case: Sardari Lal &amp; Another Vs. Union of India &amp; Others

2. The appellants are displaced persons from West Pakistan. On the basis of the claim made by them that they were occupancy tenants of 125 acres of land in the village of Mauza Khunde in Montgomery District and as a consequence of the partition of the country they had to abandon the land, Mr. Tirlok Singh, I.C.S, the then Director General of Rehabilitation, allotted 55 acres of land to them by an order dated June 12, 1953. A sanad was also issued on November 5, 1955.3. The ManagingRegistrar of the Rehabilitation Department at Jullundur, on the scrutiny of the records came to know that the land in question was wrongly allotted to the appellants. He, therefore, forwarded the papers to the Chief Settlement Commissioner, Jullundur, for appropriate action. The Chief Settlement Commissioner, Jullundur, in the exercise of his power under S. 24 (2) of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954, hereinafter called the "Act", issued notice to the appellants to show cause why the allotment should not be cancelled. The appellants appeared before him and contended that the land was allotted after full enquiry about the right of the appellants to get the allotment. The appellants also produced affidavits from the legal representatives of the previous owners of the property in Pakistan which they had to abandon to show that their predecessor granted occupancy right in the property to theof the appellants. The Chief Settlement Commissioner was not satisfied about the occupancy right claimed by the appellants in the land in Pakistan. He, therefore, cancelled the allotment evidenced by the sanad by his order dated June 19, 1965.4. The reasoning of the Chief Settlement Commissioner was that the Jamabandi in respect of the land showed that the appellants had no occupancy rights therein and so no reliance can be placed on the affidavits produced by the appellants.5. The appellants filed an application for revision of the order under S. 33 of the Act before the Union of India, Department of Rehabilitation. The revision was dismissed for substantially the same reasons as those given by the Chief Settlement Commissioner in his order.6. The appellants filed a petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution before the High Court challenging the correctness of the order. The High court dismissed the writ petition in limine and this appeal, by special leave, is against this order.

Reasoning:
10. It is noteworthy that in the objection filed by the appellants to the notice by the Chief Settlement Commissioner to show cause why the allotment should not be cancelled, they never contended that the Jamabandi did not represent the correct state of affairs or that there is any mistake in it.In other words, inspite of the opportunity given to the appellants to support the allotment in their favour, they never challenged the correctness of the Jamabandi on the basis of which both the Chief Settlement Commissioner and the revisional authority came to the conclusion that the appellants had no occupancy right in the land in Pakistan. As there was a definite finding in the orders of these authorities that the appellants had no occupancy right in the land in Pakistan based on relevant materials and as the inference therefrom could only be that the appellants obtained the allotment by making false representation, we think that the High Court was justified under Articles 226 or 227 of the Constitution.