HARBHAJAN SINGH Vs. CHIEF SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, whose claim to acquire the evacuee Banjar land (specified in paragraph 1 of the petition), under the 1962 Press-Note of the Government on the basis of his continuous possession from January 1960, has been negatived by the rehabilitation authorities, impugns those orders Annexure 'B' and 'C' to the petition. As his claim was rejected by the Tehsildar (Sales) cum-Managing Officer, on the ground that he was not found in continuous possession of the land since Kharif 1960, and the land was put to a restricted auction, the petitioner challenged that order and the auction proceedings in an appeal before the Settlement Officer (Sales). The ground taken up by him was that he had applied for the correction of the Khasra Girdawari entries and the same had wrongly been made in favour of other persons on account of the animus of the Patwari against him. That appeal was dismissed on November 29, 1965, vide Annexure 'A' to the petition with the observation, that if the appellant succeeded in getting the Girdawari entries corrected, he could apply to the appropriate authority for review of the orders if he so desired. After the correction of the said entries by the revenue officers, the petitioner again applied to the said very Settlement Officer (Sales) for the review of his earlier order but the prayer was again declined by him vide his order dated June 22, 1966 (copy Annexure 'B' to the petition), on the ground that the Khasra Girdawari entries could not possibly be corrected as the Jamabandi of the village had been prepared and he was not prepared to act on the order of the Assistant Collector 2nd Grade Phillaur, ordering the correction of the said entries. The appeal of the petitioner against that order of the Settlement Officer (Sales) was dismissed by the Chief Settlement Commissioner, Punjab, on April 5, 1968 on the ground that the appellant before him had not produced the corrected Khasra Girdawari and also for the reason that in the meantime, the land had been auctioned afresh on May 4, 1966. It may be pointed out here that in this very appeal the petitioner had also assailed the auction proceedings. The Chief Settlement Commissioner was further of the view that the transfer of such land to the unauthorised occupants from 1960 towards was only a matter of concession and they had no legal right against a regular auction purchaser.

(2.) To my mind, the Settlement Officer (Sales) and the Chief Settlement Commissioner, have not approached the case from a correct angle. So far as the legal right of the petitioner is concerned, it has authoritatively been held by a Division Bench of this Court in Bishan Singh and others v. Chief Settlement Commissioner, Punjab and others, 1973 PunLJ 183, that the persons falling in the categories covered by the Press-Note of 1962, have an enforceable legal right. This legal aspect of the matter is not even now being disputed by the learned counsel for the respondents. Similarly these rehabilitation authorities could not possibly sit as appellate authorities over the orders of revenue authority ordering the correction of the Khasra Girdawari entries. The Settlement Officer (Sales) could not possibly ignore the order of the Assistant Collector 2nd Grade, Phillaur, with the observation that the said order could not be passed or correction of the Girdawari entries could not be ordered after the preparation of Jamabandi in the village. So far as the maintenance and the making of the entries and ordering correction thereof is concerned, that squarely lies within the sphere and jurisdiction of the revenue authorities. It would have been a different matter if the authorities had not otherwise relied on the entries on the ground that these were either suspicious or motivated or brought about as a matter of connivance or fraud etc. being committed on anybody. In the absence of any such suggestion these authorities could not possibly say that the order of the revenue officer should be ignored as according to them the revenue officer could not have passed that order.

(3.) In view of the above discussion, I find that the impugned orders, Annexures 'B' and 'C' are wholly unsustainable and I set these aside. The case is remanded to the Settlement Officer (Sales)-cum-Assistant Settlement Commisioner with the direction to decide the claim of the petitioner afresh in the light of the observations made above.