- (1.) The petitioner challenges the order passed by the authorities under the Displaced Persons (Compensation & Rehabilitation) Act, 1954 (for short, 'the Act, 1954'). The petitioner is a purchaser of land to an extent of 7.15 standard acres of land from an allottee Kartar Singh under the Act, 1954. The property was situated in village Jyotisar. The vendor Kartar Singh in suppression of the fact of his allotment of the extent, which he was entitled to, obtained an additional allotment of 1.11 standard acres of land at village Roorkee under the Act, 1954 as a displaced person. This allotment was found to be bad and was required to be resumed by the State. In the resumption proceedings, the petitioner claimed that the property, which he had been allotted at village Jyotisar had already been sold by him and if the property, which was subsequently allotted to him was to be also retrieved, he would be grossly prejudiced. On the plea so taken by the allottee, the Chief Settlement Commissioner offered to him an opportunity to pay Rs.3,500/- per standard acre for retention of the land in village Roorkee. The Chief Settlement Commissioner had also directed in his order dated 05.09.1974 that if he did not pay the money, the area in his possession in village Jyotisar shall be cancelled and retrieved. As it turned out, the amount was not paid by him and, therefore, for the excess allotment of property made in village Roorkee, the State sought to recover 1.11 standard areas of land in village Jyotisar, which by then passed to many hands by successive sales along with remaining extent of property.
(2.) The petitioner, who had been a purchaser under the document dated 14.01.1972, claimed that when the property was sold to him, it was actually a property, which fell within the entitlement of Kartar Singh and, therefore, if the property had been wrongly allotted in excess in village Roorkee, only the property in village Roorkee must have been retrieved and the property purchased by him could not have been resumed by the Government. It is the further contention that if the allottee could have been offered an opportunity to purchase the property in village Roorkee then, similar opportunity must have been given to the petitioner also.
(3.) The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is contested by the State on the ground that when the Government was taking step for recovery of the property allotted in excess, it could only take back the property from the person, who was the last purchaser of the excess land and in terms of the decisions of this Court in Harbans Singh and others v. Chief Settlement Commissioner, Punjab and others, 1979 PunLJ 288, the recovery could have been made only in respect of the property held by the petitioner last purchaser.;