JASWANT SINGH, J. - (1.) THE litigation culminating in the present appeal (by certifcate under Article 133 (1) (b) of the Constitution) which is directed against the judgment and order dated 25/09/1967,of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in C.W. N. 1630 of 1962 setting aside the allotmentn dated 23/05/1960 made by Naib Tehsildar-cum-Managing Officer, Fatehabad, District Hissar in favour of Madan Mohan and others, and orders dated 18/04/1962 and 21/07/1962 of the Assistant Settlement Commisioner and Chief Settlement Commissioner respectively on the finding that "no part of holding which formed part of the land allotted to respondent No. 14, Mehta Lal Chand, (hereinafter referred to as 'the respondent') could, during the subsistence of such allotment and without its cancellation, be allotted to any one else" has had a very chequered career extending over well nigh two decades. It appears that the respondent who is a displaced person from Pakistan was found entitled to an allotment of 113 standard acres and 3 units of land in lieu of 120 acres of land held by him as owner in Bhawalpur (Pakistan). Against the aforesaid entitlement, the respondent was allotted 90 standard acres and 6 units of evacuee land between 1953 and 1958 in different villages of Tehsil Fatehabad, District Hissar including two areas measuring (1) 13 standard acres and 31/2 units and (2) 13 standard acres and 131/2 units in village Bahmniwala, allottment of which was made on 1/03/1957 and 10/10/1958 respectively. Pursuant to the above allotment of 13 standard acres and 31/2 units made in his favour in village Bahmniwala vide Sanad dated 6/03/1957 (Annexure 'C' to the writ petition), the respondent was given possession of the plots of land comprised in khasra Nos. 1411 min, 1412 min, 1472 min, 1241 min, 1242, 1243, 1244, 1245, 1246, 1247, 1621, 1622 to 1635 (14 khasras) 1642, 1644, 164 5/06/1957. THE respondent continued to remain in possession of the aforesaid plots of land till Rabi 1960 when consolidation of holdings were undertaken in village Bahmniwala. Without caring to look into the revenue record, the Consolidation Officer instead of showing the aforesaid allotted area in Bahmniwala in the name of the respondent included the same in the kurrah (area) of the Custodian. On coming to know about this irregularity, the respondent filed objections before the Consolidation Officer and requested him to rectify the mistake. THE Consolidation Officer by his order dated 23/03/1960 consigned the objection petition of the respondent to the record room observing that 'in the absence of the relevant record which, as per the report of the Wasal Baqi Niwas, has been despatched to Jullundur for checking purposes, the factum of allotment cannot be varified and as it is necessary to take proceedings under Section 21 (2) of the Consolidation of Holdings Act in village Bahmniwala in this very month, the record cannot be awaited any further'. THE Consolidation Officer further observed that since it appeared from a perusal of the copy of the Sanad (allotment) that the entire 'kurrah' consisted of almost evacuee land bearing khasra numbers mentioned in the Sanad of allotment, the respondent could, on the receipt of the record, get the area at the place where, according to him, the evacuee land mentioned by him in his application was situate. By his order dated 23/05/1960, the Naib Tehsildar-cum-Managing Officer, Fatehabad, however, made the following allotments out of an area of 58 standard acres and 7 units situate in Bahminwala which included the khasra numbers already allotted to the respondent but which according to the 'Fard Fazla' (statement of surplus area) prepared by the concerned Patwari appeared to be available for allotment:- JUDGEMENT_787_SUPP1_1980Html1.htm
(2.) AGGRIEVED by this order of the Naib Tehsildar-cum-Managing Officer which adversely affected the allotment already made in his favour, the respondent preferred an appeal to the Assistant Settlement Commissioner (with powers of Settlement Commissioner), Punjab, Jullundur contending that 13 standard acres and 31/2 units of land in Bahmniwala allotted to him in 1957 had been erroneously included in the 'kurrah' of the Custodian at the time of the Consolidation operations and that the same had now been erroneously allotted without his knowledge to Bagga Singh, Inder Singh, Madan Mohan Singh and his sons. Curiously enough, the Assistant Settlement Commissioner (with powers of Settlement Commissioner) while conceding that the aforesaid 13 standard acres and 31/2 units and 13 standard acres 13 1/2 units in village Bahmniwala were allotted in favour of the respondent on 17/06/1957 and 10/10/1958 respectively and that there was no cancellation order in respect thereof and that the colsolidation authorities should not have withdrawn the area from the name of the respondent who had through no fault of his been put to a lot of difficulty and that it was just and proper that the matter of allotment to which he was entitled be settled once for all in such a way that whole of the area is given to him permanently in one village, rejected the appeal by his order dated 18/04/1962 observing that there was no good ground for interfering with the allotment of the appellants and that it would be open to the respondent to apply to the Naib Tehsildar-cum-Managing Officer to make up the shortfall in his area by allotment of some other land which may be available in that village. Dissatisfied with the order of the Assistant Settlement Commissioner, the respondent took the matter in revision to the Deputy Secretary (Rehabilitation) exercising the powers of the Chief Settlement Commissioner who also after paying lip sympathy dismissed the revision on the ground that it was time barred. AGGRIEVED by these orders, the respondent moved the High Court of Punjab and Haryana by means of the aforesaid petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution. The High Court by its judgment and order dated 25/09/1962 set aside the aforesaid theree impugned orders holding that they were wholly without jurisdiction and the Tehsildar-cum-Managing Officer was not authorised to allot to the appellants the land which was already comprised in a subsisting valid allotment of the respondent. It is against this judgment and order of the High Court that the present appeal is directed. On the appeal coming up before us on 19/07/1978, we heard counsel for the parties at considerable length and felt in necessary for clarification of certain points which had been left vague in the Courts below to have before us the entire record relating to the allotment made in favour of the respondent. Accordingly, with the consent of counsel for the parties, we adjourned the hearing of the case and directed the Union of India to instruct the Chief Settlement Commissioner, State of Haryana, either to appear himself before us with all the relevant record relating not only to the allotment originally made in favour of the respondent vide Sanad No. HS4/1957/11202 dated 1/03/1957 but alos with the record pertaining to all the subsequent allotments made in his favour up-to-date or cause the appearance of a responsible officer with the aforesaid record. To obviate delay in disposal of the case, we also directed the Chief Settlement Commissioner to have in readiness a factual statement showing the net area in terms of standard acres to which the respondent was entitled as a displaced person, the particulars of the fields initially allotted in his favour including the survey numbers and the extent of the area thereof, particulars of the survey numbers of the fields taken out of the respondent's allotment vide Naib Tehsildar-cum-Managing Officer, Tehsil Fatehabad's order dated 23/05/1960 and particulars of all the subsequent allotments made up-to-date in the respondent's favour in different villages of District Hissar including village Bahmniwala as also the extent of the allotted area which is at present held by him. Accordingly, the Chief Settlement Commissioner has caused the attendance of K. L. Narula, Deputy District Attorney, Rehabilitation Department, Haryana, Chandigarh who has also filed an affidavit relating to the points on which information was required by us. We have perused the entire material and have again heard counsel for all the sides. Two questions arise for determination in this case - (1) whether the respondent acquired any enforceable right as a result of the allotment made in his favour on 1/03/1957 and delivery in pursuance thereof to him of possession of the aforesaid khasra numbers on 17/06/1957 and (2) whether the parcels of land which already stood allotted in favour of the respondent vide allotment order dated 1/03/1957 could be allotted by the Naib Tehsildar-cum-Mangaging Officer, Fatehabad, in favour of Madan Mohan Singh and others without notice to the respondent and without affording him an opportunity of being heard. The first question has to be considered in the light of the judgment of this Court in Amar Singh v. Custodian Evacuee Property, Punjab (1957) SCR 801 : ( AIR 1957 SC 599) where the whole history of the legislative measures devised from time to time in the erstwhile State of Punjab to combat the gigantic problems created as a result of the mass migration of non-Muslim land holders to East Punjab is traced. A perusal of the judgment reveals that in exercise of the rule making power vested in it under Cls. (f) and (ff) of sub-sec. (2) of S. 22 of the East Punjab Evacuees' (Administration of Property) Act, 1947 (E. P. Act No. XIV of 1947) as amended in 1948, the Punjab Government issued Notification Nos. 4891-S and 4892-S on 8/07/1949, setting out the conditions regulating allotment by the Custodian of the land which vested in him. The first incident of allotment deducible from the notification is hereditability of the rights of the allottee which constitute quasi-permanent allotment. The statement of conditions published under Notification Numbers 4891-S and 4892-S of 8/07/1949 was continued in force as the Administration of Evacuee Property (Rural) Rules framed by the Provincial Government under sub-section (2) of Section 53 of the Central Ordinance No. XXVII of 1949 under delegation from the Central Government under Notification Number 3094-A/Cus/49 dated 2/12/1949 subject to certain modifications and amendments. On repeal of the Central Ordinance by Central Act XXXI of 1950 the aforesaid rules were continued by virtue of Section 58 of the Act as though made under that Act. Later in exercise of the delegated rule making power vested in the Provincial Government under Section 55 of the Central Act, the Punjab Government framed rules dated 29/08/1951 entitled "Institutions for review and revision of land allotment" which affected the rules of 8/07/1949 only to the extent that they were inconsistent with the earlier rules. A reference to the earlier and subsequent rules would show that the later rules do not concern any of the matters provided by the earlier Rules of 1949 (and 1950) excepting as regards resumption which virtually is cancellation of allotment. The position that emerges from the foregoing is that the rules of July, 1949 continued in force except to the extent of inconsistency. (The next set of rules are those made under Central Act XXXI of 1950). Then came the rules dated 29/08/1951 made by the Punjab Government in exercise of the powers delegated to it by the Central Government under Section 55 (1) of the Central Act XXXI of 1950. It will be seen that the rules of 29/08/1951 are substantially the same as those enumerated in clause (6) of 8/07/1949 notification as regards resumption and only supplement the notification of 8/07/1949 as regards eviction in certain contingencies. The rights and incidents enjoyed by the allottees under the quasi-permanent scheme introduced by the aforesaid notification of 8/07/1949 are catalogued at page 823 (of SCR) : of the aforesaid judgment of this Court in Amar Singh v. Custodian, Evacuee Property, Punjab (Supra). They are : "1. The allottee is entitled to right of use and occupation of the property until such time as the property remains vested in the Custodian. (clause 3 (1).) 2. The benefit of such right will enure to his heirs and successors. (Definition of 'allottee'.) 3. His enjoyment of the property is on the basis of paying land-revenue thereupon and cesses for the time being. Additional rent may be fixed thereupon by the Custodian. If and when he does so, the allottee is bound to pay the same. (Clause 3 (3).) 4. He is entitled to quiet and undisturbed enjoyment of the property during that period. (Clause 8).
(3.) HE is entitled to make improvements on the land with the assent of the Custodian and is entitled to compensation in the manner provided in the Punjab Tenancy Act. (Clause 7) He is entitled to exchange the whole or any part of the land for other evacuee land with the consent of the Custodian. (Clause 5).;