HARI CHAND Vs. CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner Hari Chand seeks a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the impugned orders dated 20.6.1980 and 12.3.1980 passed by the Financial Commissioner, exercising the powers of Central Government under Section 33 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation & Rehabilitation) Act, 1954 and Chief Settlement Commissioner, Haryana, respectively (Annexures P3 and P1).

(2.) The brief facts that have been detailed in the petition reveal that petitioner is a displaced person from West Pakistan. After the partition of the country, he was allotted land measuring 33 standard acres 15-3/4 units in village Jamalpur, Tehsil Hansi, District Hissar (now Bhiwani) in lieu of the land abandoned by him in the areas now forming part of West Pakistan. This allotment was made in the Year 1955 and permanent rights were conferred and sanad was also granted in due course in the year 1956. It is the case of the petitioner that he has been regularly paying betterment levy on account of additional irrigation facilities provided for this land. It is further pleaded that in view of the instructions contained in letter No. 46223-4(Bob) dated 2nd of November, 1960, it was decided that the land which is subject to payment of betterment levy provided for this land. It is further pleaded that in view of the has to be allotted on the basis of the original value. In the year 1970, i.e. 14 years after the conferment of proprietary rights, the respondents on scrutiny, discovered that the land allotted to the petitioner at the time of allotment was wrongly calculated at the rate of 10 Annas per acre instead of 15 Annas per acre and the same was "Nehri Do Fasli". The case of the petitioner is that if at all, it was exclusively the mistake of the department for which the petitioner could not be blamed as there was no concealment, mis-representation or fraud committed by him. The department, however, calculated the entitlement of the petitioner on the basis of value of land calculated at 10 Annas per acre and asked him to part possession of the excess land to the extent of 14 Standard Acres 5-1/4 units over and above his entitlement. The order of cancellation as such was passed on 23.2.1970. In appeal, however, the aforesaid order was set aside as the Managing Officer could not cancel the permanent rights and the matter was referred to the Chief Settlement Commissioner who in ex parte proceedings passed order dated 22.8.1972 cancelling the permanent rights. Admittedly this order was upheld by the Central Government under Section 33 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954 (hereinafter to be referred as the Act) constraining the petitioner to file Civil Writ Petition bearing No. 1040 of 1974 which was accepted and the case was remanded to the Chief Settlement Commissioner to decide the case afresh after hearing the parties. At this stage, it shall be relevant to reproduce the order passed by this Court in so far as the same has bearing on the controversy involved in the present Writ Petition :-

(3.) It is mainly pleaded in the petition and so also canvassed by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that several writ petitions involving the same points were allowed by this Court in Bal Krishan Mukhi's case and it was held that if permanent rights are to be cancelled and allotments had to be cancelled, then it is the duty of the Chief Settlement Commissioner to deal with the question of delay and give finding that there was no undue delay or it could not be avoided in the circumstances of the case. He should have also given finding that it was necessary, in the interest of justice, to interfere with the previous order after lapse of that much time. Irrespective of the undertaking given by the counsel appearing for the petitioner in the earlier petition, it is argued that when the case was remanded, all the pleas were available to the petitioner and it could not be said that the petitioner was estopped from raising the point of delay. The other point that has been canvassed is that as per instructions, referred to above, the land which was Barani originally but to which irrigation facilities were provided and for which betterment changes were being levied, could not have been cancelled and point to the effect aforesaid pressed into service was negatived on wholly untenable grounds.