TEJA SINGH Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this Letters Patent Appeal against the judgment of a learned Single Judge of this Court, dated November 6, 1968, dismissing Civil Writ 1881 of 1966, without any offer as to cots, it is unnecessary to go into the previous history of the case relating to the original allotment of land made to the appellant - who is admittedly a displaced person from West Pakistan - on the basis of oral verification, subsequent cancellation of that allotment and resumption of the allotted land on the finding that the land said to have been left behind by the appellant in Pakistan was not shown to be in his name in the jamabandi received from that country, and into the subsequent proceedings initiated by the appellant for reallotment of area in lieu of the land said to have been left behind in Pakistan, prior to the stage of the final order of the Chief Settlement Commissioner, dated September 7, 1965. In that order (Annexure 'g'), which was impugned by the appellant in his petition under Arts. 226 and 227 of the Constitution in this Court, the learned Chief Settlement Commissioner held:

(2.) THE learnt Chief Settlement Commissioner did not doubt the genuineness of the registered sale-deeds. In fact he recorded an implied finding of the appellant having really purchased the land in dispute under those registered sale-deeds. He also conceded in his impugned order that the entries in a jamabandi are not conclusive for determining a claim of this type, and that in the case of jamabandi being silent, other evidence to prove title to property left behind in Pakistan was admissible. Still he negatived the claim of the appellant on only two grounds, viz. : (i) that though there was no indication, complaint or evidence about the appellant having ever parted with any interest in the land (admittedly purchased by him) between 1944-45 and 1947, the possibility of his having done so could not be excluded; and (ii) that though there were registered sale deeds, no effect could be given to them, unless there at least existed mutation entry relating to the transfer even though the mutation might not have been sanctioned.

(3.) THE Chief Settlement Commissioner upheld the observations of the Managing Officer to the effect that if and when the appellant is able to prove his title, allotment would be made to him.