Case: Om Prakash &amp; Others Vs. Union of India &amp; Others

After the partition of India in 1947 the Appellants father Shri Ram Chander filed a claim in respect of the land which was owned and left behind by him in Pakistan. In respect of this claim land measuring 49.2 Standard acres was allotted to him in village Pasina Kalan, Tehsil Panipat, District Karnal. Soon thereafter the Appellants father, after this allotment died in 1948 leaving the Appellants and their brother Shri Ved Prakash as the only legal heirs. After the proprietary rights were conferred upon the Appellants, Ved Prakash sold his share of the land to Appellants Nos. 2 and 3 by Registered sale deed dated 27th November, 1957. It appears that the SectionOfficer, Department of Rehabilitation, Jullundur Respondent No. 4 while verifying the claim discovered that an area ofacres was in excess of what the Appellants were actually entitled to, having regard to the nature of the land left by their father in Pakistan which was not wholly canal irrigated but comprised of Banjar Jadid, Banjar Qadim and Ghair Mumkin land and accordingly he reopened the allotment and cancelled it to the extent of the excess. Against this order the appellants filed an appeal to Respondent 3 challenging the jurisdiction of Respondent 4, the SectionOfficer to pass an order cancelling permanent rights conferred on them. Respondent 3 however referred the matter to Respondent 2the Chief Settlement Commissioner, Punjab onwho acting under Section 24 (1) of the Act cancelled the order of allotment to the extent of1/2 standard acres out of the area allotted to Appellants father. Thereafter the appeal filed by the Appellants was dismissed by Respondent 3 as infructuous. A revision against the order of the Respondent was preferred to the Central Government under Section 33 of the Act which was also rejected on the 27th May 1966. The Appellants thereafter filed a Writ Petition in the High Court of Punjab for the issuance of a writ of certiorari for quashing the orders passed by the Respondents 1 to 4 which was dismissed in limine by a Bench of that Court on the 28th July 1966. Subsequently another Bench of the same Court however, granted a certificate to appeal to this Court under Article 133 of the Constitution of India in as much as following the Judgment of this Court in Ramesh v Gendalal Motilal Patnik, AIR 1966 SC 1445   it was held that the order of dismissal in limine was a final order and the value of the subject matter in dispute being Rs. 20,000/the Appellant was declared to be entitled to the grant of a certificate to appeal as a matter of right.

Court's reasoning:
This contention in our view has no validity. It is aproposition of law that where a specific power is conferred without prejudice to the generality of the general powers already specified, the particular power is only illustrative and does not in any way restrict the general power.The decision of this Court in Estate Development Ltd. v. Union of India, (1970) 1 SCJ 927 = (AIR 1970 SC 1978  ) did not consider this aspect of the matter and was only concerned with(2) of Section 24 and consequently it is not of much assistance to the Appellants.7. In this view the contention of the learned Advocate that neither the SectionOfficer under Section 19 nor the Chief Settlement Commissioner under Section 24 had jurisdiction to revise their earlier orders, has no force, nor is there any justification in the contention that Respondent 3 could not refer the matter to the Chief Settlement Commissioner for him to exercise the power under Section 24 (1) of the Act.8. On the merits of the case there is no doubt that the initial allotment was made on the assumption that the land belonging to the Appellants father which was left in Pakistan as canal land but as it turned out from the records which the Department of Rehabilitation obtained from the Pakistan Government the lands owned by the Appellants were not entirely canal land but there were included in it Banjar Jadid, Banjar Qadim and Ghair Mumkin land, which did not entitle the Appellants father to allotment of 49.2 Standard Acres but to a lesser extent. In other words the allotment made to the Appellants father initially was1/2 standard acres in excess of the extent to which he was entitled. The Appellant, however, as already stated contests this finding. Thelearned Advocate on their behalf has urged before us that Fard Taqsim and Khasra Girdawari had not correctly indicated either the extent of the land or itsclassification. We do not think this contention is tenable.It may be observed that nowhere was it urged that neither the Fard Taqsim nor the Khasra Girdawari were not important revenue records nor that they do not disclose the classification of the land or source of irrigation. Whatwas urged was that the records sent by the Pakistan Government were not reliable.We do not think that the contention that Fard Taqsim and Khasra Girdawari are not important documents is justified nor can it be said that it is not possible to say what is the nature, extent or quality of the land. The learned Advocate has referred us to page 49 of Land Resettlement Manual by Tirlok Singh which is said to be a standard work. It is therein stated that for class of land the entry in the Jamabandi is to be followed strictly.11. Even the earlier references in the book show that the entries in the Jamabandi did not give all the necessary details and therefore certain directions had to be given.It is also evidence that details regarding the extent distribution and classification of land could be obtained from Fard Taqsim which is also an important Revenueare however, not concerned with the various aspects of these records as it is not necessary for us to consider them in this case except to the extent necessary namely to show that a Fard Taqsim is as important a document as Jamabandi and gives in so far as this case is concerned the relevant data for determining whether the land owned and left by the Appellants father was entirely canal land. Both the Section OfficerOfficer as well as the Chief Settlement Commissioner therefore, were right in placing reliance on the Fard Taqsim and Khasra Girdawari to come to the conclusion that the entire land belonging to the Appellants father was not canal irrigated, and therefore, what was allotted was1/2 standard acres in excess.13. Even from the order in Revision of the Central Government, Department of Rehabilitation datedit is apparent that the Appellants had again pressed before him similar contentions to those urged before the Chief Settlement Commissioner. Shri Nair in a detailed order while dismissing the revisionregards the plea that yet another opportunity may be given to the petitioners to produce some documentary evidence I am of the opinion that in the circumstances explained by the Chief Settlement Commissioner (R) it will hardly serve any purpose as the Shud Kar of the Canal Department on which they rely are reported to have been destroyed.However, if there is any cogent documentary proof to establish that the entire land was Nehri, the petitioners can place it before the authorities concerned in order to get their account corrected. As matters stand at present which indicate that all possible efforts were made to obtain the information from Pakistan, I find no illegality or impropriety in the impugned order. The petition is devoid of force and is hereby rejected".We consider this order to be fair and reasonable. There is no doubt that it is still open to the Appellants to avail of the opportunity afforded to them to procure and produce such material from which it can be established that the entries in the Fard Taqsim and Khasra Girdawari are not correct or that the lands owned by the Appellants father were canal lands entitling the Appellants to an allotment of 49.2 standard acres. Till then no exception can be taken to the orders passed by the concerned authorities.