Reddy, - (1.) THE Judgment of the court was delivered by
(2.) THIS appeal is against the order of cancellation of theallotment made in favour of the appellant's father in 1948 under theDisplaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954 (hereinaftercalled the Act) in the following circumstances. After the partition of India in 1947 the appellant's father Shri Ram Chander filed a claim in respect of the land which was owned andleft behind by him in Pakistan. In respect of this claim land measuring 49.2standard acres was allotted to him in village. Pasina Kalan, Tehsil Panipat,District Karnal. Soon thereafter the appellant's father, after this allotmentdied in 1948 leaving the appellants and their brother Shri Ved Prakashas the only legal heirs. After the proprietory rights were conferred uponthe appellants, Ved Prakash sold his share of the land to appellants Nos. 2and 3 by registered sale deed, dated 27/11/1957. It appearsthat the Section Officer-cum-Managing Officer, Department of Rehabilitation,Jullundur, Respondent No. 4 while verifying the claim discovered that anarea of 15-171 standard acres was in excess of what the appellants wereactually entitled to, having regard to the nature of the land left by their fatherin Pakistan which was not wholly canal irrigated but comprised of Banjai943Jadid, Banjar Qadim and Ghair Mumkin land and accordingly he re-openedthe allotment and cancelled it to the extent of the excess. Against thisorder the appellants filed an appeal to Respondent 3 challenging thejurisdiction of Respondent 4. the Section Officer-cum-Managing Officer topass an order cancelling permanent rights conferred on them. Respondent 3however referred the matter to Respondent 2-the Chief' SettlementCommissioner, Punjab, on 31/7/1964, who acting under Section 24(1) of theAct cancelled the order of allotment to the extent of 15-17 standard acresout of the area allotted to appellant's father. Thereafter the appeal filedby the appellants was dismissed -by Respondent 3 as infructuous. A revisionagainst the order of the Respondent 2 was preferred to the central Govern-ment under Section 33 of the Act which was also rejected on the 27/05/1966. The appellants thereafter filed a writ petition in the High courtof Punjab for the issuance of a writ of certiorari for quashing the orderspassed by the Respondents 1 to 4 which was dismissed in limine by a benchof that court on the 28/07/1966. Subsequently another bench of thesame court however, granted a certificate to appeal to this court underArticle 133 of the Constitution of India inasmuch as following the judgmentof this court in Ramesh and Another v. Gendalal Motilal Patnik and Others(AIR 1966 SC 1445), it was held that the order of dismissal in limine was afinal order and the value of the subject-matter in dispute being Rs. 20,000.00 the appellant was declared to be entitled to the grant of a certificate toappeal as a matter of right. It is contended before us by Shri Bhamari Lal, learned Advocate, for the appellants that once proprietory rights have been conferred upon the appellants in respect of the entire area of the land which is allotted to them, the Section Officer-cum-Managing Officer had no jurisdiction to cancel theallotment and if this is so the High court ought to have quashed that orderin exercise of the jurisdiction vested in it under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It is also contended, that Respondent 3 was not justified, in making a reference to Respondent 2 for cancelling the proprietory rightsconferred upon the appellants because if Respondent 4 had no jurisdictionto cancel the order, he had also no jurisdiction to cancel the allotmentexcept to cancel the order of Respondent 4. Further the reference madeby Respondent 3 to Respondent 2 is equally bad because under Section 19 of the Act, read with Rule 102 of the Displaced Persons Compensation and Rehabilitation Rules) it is for the Section Officer-cum-Managing Officer, Respondent 4 to refer the matter to Respondent 2, as such the reference by Respondent 3 to Respondent 2 is bad in law.
(3.) LASTLY it was contended that the authorities were in error in holding that there was no material for them to hold that the land which was owned by the appellant's father in Pakistan was not canal irrigated land because the first Fard Taqsim received from the Pakistan authorities did not even show the name of the appellant's father as owner of any land in Pakistanand when the second Fard Taqsim was received by the Rehabilitationauthorities from Pakistan they did show the appellant's father as owner ofthe land but Khasra Girdawari which was received with it did not showthe entire land as canal irrigated. In these circumstances it was urgedthat no reliance could be placed upon these contradictory documents whichwere sent by Pakistan authorities from time to time. The learned Advocatealso contended that the best evidence which could have shown the Classification of the land owned by the appellant's father was the 'Shud Kar'entries of the Canal Department which would corroborate the appellant'scontention that the entire land was canal irrigated but when these document?944 were sent for, the Pakistan authorities said that the 'Shud Kar' had beendestroyed and subsequently the Deputy Commissioner tor India in Pakistanhad informed that the Pakistan authorities were not co-operative in supplying the entries in 'Shud Kar'. It was also contended by the learnedAdvocate that the Jamabandi papers which are the most important revenuerecords ought to have been looked into instead of the Fard Taqsim andthe Khasra Girdawari and if so examined the Jamabandi papers would haveshown that the land which the appellant's father owned was canal land. It is not denied that the appellant's father obtained the allotment on the basis of an oral verification of his claim under 3 categories-Quasi-permanent, Temporary and Reserve. This oral verification is subject to correction, variation and cancellation if subsequently relevant revenue records which were called for from the Pakistan authorities justified such acourse. The Section 'Officer-cum-Managing Officer could therefore underSection 19 of the Act cancel any allotment or terminate any lease or amendthe terms of any lease or allotment under which any evacuee property wasallotted. The Chief Settlement Commissioner had also the powers undersub-section ( 1 ) of Section 24 of the Act to call for the records at any timeof the proceedings under the Act in which an officer specified therein haspassed an order, for the purpose of satisfying himself as to the legality orpropriety of any such order and may pass such order in relation theretoas he thinks fit. Sub-section (2) further provides as follows : "Without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing power undersub-section (1), if the Chief Settlement Commissioner is satisfied thatany order for payment of compensation to a displaced person or anylease or allotment granted to such a person has been obtained by him bymeans of fraud, false representation or concealment of any material fact,then, notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, the Chief Settlement Commissioner may pass an order directing that no compensationshall be paid to such a person or reducing the amount of compensationto be paid to him, or as the case may be, cancelling the lease orallotment granted to. him; and if it is found that a displaced person hasbeen paid compensation which is not payable to him, or which is inexcess of the amount payable to him, such amount or excess, as thecase may be, may, on a certificate issued by the Chief SettlementCommissioner, be recovered in the same manner .as an arrear of landrevenue." ;