- (1.) The challenge is to the order of cancellation of allotment made under the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act of 1954. The property had been allotted to the petitioner as a displaced person from the erstwhile area in India that became Pakistan in respect of 21 standard acres and 1 units. The extent was evidently to compensate and rehabilitate the petitioner for the extent of property which he had lost in his migration to India at the time of partition. A Conveyance Deed had also been issued on 26.11.1962. The allotment was said to have been reappraised on a complaint by one Amin Chand in the year 1976 stating that the property had been treated as if it was as a "non-perennial land", while it was actually a "perennial land" which came under the water flow of the Bhakra system. The Chief Settlement Commissioner, who refused to reopen the issue and passed an order on 01.01.1982 chose to up the issue again on the complaint of the 4th respondent Wassam Ram, Lambardar of the Village, stating that the property had been assessed at 10 annas per acre that showed the property was a 'perennial land' and the entitlement of the petitioner could not have been 21 standard acres and 1 units, but should have been reduced by a further extent of 17 standard acres. This objection was upheld and the impugned order came to be passed on 30.04.1986 by the Chief Settlement Commissioner. Pursuant to this, alleged excess property was sought to be auctioned on 09.01.1987 when thanks to the judicial intervention of this Court in the above case, the action was stopped.
(2.) The learned senior counsel for the petitioner contends that the property which had been dealt with by the Central Government and a sanad that was issued in the name of the President could not have been reopened and made the subject of cancellation without any sanction or approval from the Central Government. The learned counsel would read Section 32 viz., the power to give direction as preemptory in its scope and the delegation of power to the authorities as contemplated under Section 34 as such delegation which would empower the State Government to act only through the Central Government notification. The counsel would argue that there was no specific notification or a direction by the Central Government empowering the State to cancel an allotment that had been made by the Central Government.
(3.) The learned counsel would further argue that the conversion of 'non-perennial' to 'perennial' through a notification issued by the Public Works Department on 04.08.1962 did not specifically spell out the conversion of the property allotted to the petitioner as having been converted to "perennial" and in any event a notification by the Public Works Department shall not whittle down the allotment made by the Central Government under the Act. It is also contended that the power of revision by the Chief Settlement Commissioner ought to be exercised within a reasonable time and an allotment made in the year 1962 could not have been reopened after nearly 2 decades especially when the petitioner himself was not guilty of any fraud or suppression, the cancellation could not have been, therefore, made.;