BAKHSHISH SINGH Vs. HAZARA SINGH
HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Click here to view full judgement.
(1.) THIS is an appeal under the Letters Patent against an order of a Single Bench of this Court issuing writ of certiorari to set aside an order of the Financial commissioner, Relief and Rehabilitation, (Custodian) and directing that "the petitioners should be heard before further, orders of cancellation of their previous allotments or new allotment orders are passed. "
(2.) ALLOTMENTS of evacuee land in village Mohan on quasi-permanent basis were made in 1949. On 11th July 1950, tne present appellants and some others presented an application before the rehabilitation authorities that the allotments had not been properly made, inasmuch as lands of the worst type situate on one side of the village were allotted to them and lands of much better quality on the other side of the village were allotted to the respondents. They prayed for reallotment of the entire land by dividing it into two separate blocks. This application presented to the Revenue Assistant was sent to Naib talmldar for repoit. The Naib Tahslldar visited the spot end arrived at the conclusion that the allotment was really unfair. He therefore suggested that there should be a re-allotment of the total land and that it should be made by classification of the land into two blocks, one towards the east and the other towards the west. of the village abadi, and each allottee be given good and bad land proportionately out of the two blocks, the Revenue Assistant agreed with the report and submitted the papers to the deputy Com- missioner (Deputy Custodian), vide his order dated 24th April, 1951. The Deputy Custodian and then the Additional Custodian forwarded the papers expressing their approval to the Financial Commissioner, Relief and Rehabilitation (Custodian ). On 21st May, 1951, Shri P. N. Thapar Financial Commissioner, Relief and Rehabilitation, accorded sanction to the realloiment as suggested. In pursuance of this order, the Revenue Assistant (Rehabilitation) reallotted the evacuee property by dividing it into two blocks, each of the allottees getting proportionate land out of the two blocks. The reallotment was put into effect by exchange of possessions in May 1952. A revision was filed against the order of reallotment to the Custodian General. The Deputy Custodian General, after hearing the petitioners before him, dismissed the revision in limine on 4-8-1953. On 24-9-1953, the persons aggrieved, the respondents before us, approached this Court in a writ petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution and challenged the order of the Custodian and also that of the deputy Cus-todian General. The learned Single Judge accepted the petition and issued a writ of certiorari quashing the first order, on the short ground that it was made without notice to tne petitioners and without affording them opportunity to be heard,
(3.) THE main points urged by Mr. A. N. Gro-ver, learned counsel for the appellants, ere: (i) The law does not enjoin that any notice shall be given before an order cancelling allotment is made, (ii) Even if any such notice was necessary, the respondents have had sufficient opportunity to represent their case before the deputy Custodian General, (iii) In any case, no writ should have been issued because substantial justice had in fact been done by the order of re-allotment, and (iv) Before the writ was issued, the evacuee property had vested in the Central government by virtue of Section 12 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and rehabilitation Act, 1954, and the notification issued thereunder, which made the writ futile and infructuous.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.