- (1.) The petitioners have filed this petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, seeking the quashing of the order of the Financial Commissioner (Taxation), Punjab exercising delegated powers of Central Government under Section 33 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation & Rehabilitation) Act, Chandigarh. The facts of the case are that one Teja Singh was allotted land in two villages, adjacent to the town of Jullundur in lieu of the land left by him in Pakistan. The Department found, on enquiry, that 0-9 standard acres of the land allotted were in excess of his allotment. Notice was given to Teja Singh for the cancellation of this area from his allotment. Teja Singh, in the meantime, died and was succeeded by his son Harcharan Singh who pursued the case before the authorities. At different levels of the Rehabilitation Department, different decisions were taken and during pendency of the proceedings till the final determination, 2 kanals of land out of it were sold by way of auction of Sunder Singh, respondent No. 4 on September 9, 1968. Harcharan Singh also died and was succeeded by the petitioners. The petitioners took the matter in revision to the Chief Settlement Commissioner, Jullundur, who, vide his order dated May 29, 1970 (Annexure 'B') upheld their claim. The only point raised before him was that the excess area should be allowed to be sold to the successors-in-interest of Teja Singh. Noticing the contention on behalf of Sunder Singh, respondent No. 4, the learned Chief Settlement Commissioner held as under :- "I have given an earnest thought to the controversy now raised by the parties. It would be pertinent to mention that my learned predecessor vide his order dated 18.11.1960 set aside the order dated 20.10.1957 whereby the then Chief Settlement Commissioner had set aside permanent rights over the excess area allotted to Shri Teja Singh in Basti Mithu, tehsil and district Jullundur. The consequence of this order was that the total land allotted in the name of Shri Teja Singh to the extent of 3-4 1/2 S. As., 1-9 S. As. in Basti Nau and 1-11 1/2 S. As. in Basti Mithu stood intact. The subsequent orders passed by the Assistant Register (D)-cum-Managing Officer cancelling excess area from the allotment of Teja Singh and its disposal by the office of the Regional Settlement Commissioner would automatically fall. The result is that while determining the title of the successors-in-interest of Shri Teja Singh to purchase the cancelled area, the learned Managing Officer is to ignore all these orders. In view of the circumstances stated above, I accept this reference and set aside the permanent rights over 0-9 units of land allotted in the name of Shri Teja Singh in village Basti Mithu, tehsil and district Jullundur. The question of sale will be decided on merits by the Assistant Registrar (D)-cum-Managing Officer, Jullundur. ... ... ... ." Sunder Singh took the matter in revision before the Financial Commissioner, Punjab which was accepted, on the ground that the land was urban and there were no departmental instructions on the basis of which the urban excess land could be transferred to the allottee. This order has been challenged before this Court. The State, vide its written statement, contested the petition and stated that the land has become "urban land" after the limits of Municipal Committee, Jullundur were extended in 1953 and could not be transferred to the allottees.
(2.) The Financial Commissioner (Taxation), Punjab decided the revision only on one point by upholding that the land was "urban area". "Urban area" has been defined in Rule 2(h) of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Rules, 1955 as under :- " 'Urban area' means any area within the limits of a corporation, a municipal committee, notified area committee, a town area committee, a small notified as such by the Central Government from time to time : Provided that in the case of the quasi permanent allotment of (any rural area) already made in the State of Punjab and Patiala and East Punjab State Union, the limits of an urban area shall be as they existed on the 15th August, 1947." Rule 2(f) of the Rules aforesaid defines 'rural area' as under :- " 'Rural area' means an area which is not urban area." It is not disputed by the parties that on August 15, 1947 the area was rural area. Whatever position may develop later on by the extention of the municipal limits and the inclusion of the area into the periphery of the municipal committee, the definition as given in Rule 2(h) of the urban area in 1955 Rules, could not be changed. The character of the area was frozen by the Rules for the purpose of allotment to the allottees. Teja Singh was given quasi permanent rights and uptill that time it was being treated as rural area by the Department. It cannot in any case be treated as urban area to refuse the request of the petitioners for selling it to them. The order of the Financial Commissioner (Annexure 'D') which is being impugned in this case, therefore, being in contravention of the definition of 'urban area' as given in the Rules, having the force of a statute, cannot be permitted to stand. The writ petition is accepted and the impugned order is quashed. The Assistant Registrar (D)-cum-Managing Officer, Jullundur now should decide the claim of the petitioners for the purchase of 0-9 standard acres of land as they have made before the Chief Settlement Commissioner. The parties are directed to put in appearance before the Assistant Registrar (D)-cum-Managing Officer, Jullundur on June 10, 1980. The petition is, therefore, accepted with no order as to costs. Petition accepted.;