Harbans Singh, J. - (1.) CIVIL Writ No. 267 of 1961 Balwant Kaur v. Chief Settlement Commissioner came up for hearing in the first instance before Mahajan, J. on 21st of September, 1962, when the learned Judge refer -red the matter to a Division Bench in view of the fact that the value of the property exceeded Rs. 70,000/' - and the third party rights had come into being. A Division Bench consisting of my learned brothers, Mahajan and Pandit, JJ. on 29th of January, 1963, in view of the conflict between. a Bench decision of this Court in Bara Singh v. Joginder Singh : Pun LR 127 : AIR 1959 P&H 370 and the Full Bench decision of the Rajasthan High Court in Partumal v. Managing Officer, AIR 1962 Raj 112 (FB) on the question of powers of the Chief Settlement Commissioner to cancel the grant of proprietary rights to a displaced ' person, directed that the matter may be laid before my Lord the Chief Justice for constituting a Full Bench, it is in these circumstances that this Full Bench was constituted.
(2.) MEANWHILE a number of other civil writs involving similar or allied points were also directed by different learned Judges to be heard with this writ. Specific questions have not been formulated for decision by this Bench. In the various petitions that have been placed before us facts give rise to a number of points and we shall not deal with the merits of any of these and would confine ourselves to the common questions of Jaw that have some bearing, in the disposal of these writ petitions. Facts alleged in the petitions would therefore be referred to only to the extent they are necessary for the limited matter before us. Broadly speaking, the writs before us fall into three categories; First, those which relate to the allotment of rural agricultural land. In these, the common factor is that the allottees of the land had been granted proprietary rights and sanads had been executed in (heir favour on behalf of the Central Government and thereafter proprietary rights in respect of whole or portion of the land so granted had been cancelled by the Chief Settlement Commissioner; secondly, cases relating to the transfer of urban property to persons who had paid the full price either by adjustment of their verified claims or by payment in cash by them or partly by one and partly by the other mode and deeds of conveyance had been executed in their favour before action was taken, by the Chief Settlement Commissioner canceling or varying the transfer, and thirdly cases where urban property had been offered to the displaced persons at a fixed price and that offer had been accepted or the property had been sold by auction or tender and the bid made at the auction or the amount offered by tender had been accepted by the authority concerned and sale price had been paid either in whole or in part in terms of the agreement but no sale deed had been executed on behalf of the Central Government before the Chief Settlement Commissioner took action and cancelled or varied the sale. As the provisions of the law are different in a number of material points in the case of allotment and disposal of rural agricultural land and. the urban property, I will deal with these two matters separately though to the extent; that some of, the provisions are common they will be dealt with, while discussing the cases covered by the first category.
(3.) IN Civil Writ No. 267 of 1961 Balwant Kaur v. Chief Settlement Commissioner the facts briefly are that Balwant Kaur owned some agricultural land in village known as Chak No. 232 RB in District Lyallpur (now in West Pakistan). Some six acres of this land was' under garden In lieu of the entire land left by the Petitioner she was allotted rural agricultural land in some villages in East Punjab in accordance with the scheme of quasi -permanent allotment to which a reference will be made presently. In respect of the displaced persons, like Balwant Kaur, who had left gardens in the rural areas now in West Pakistan, option was given to get allotment of certain gardens in East Punjab known as "Provincial gardens". A list of displaced persons, who were so qualified for the allotment of gardens, was drawn up in, order of merit and they were permitted to choose in that order from the list of provincial gardens, prepared by the rehabilitation department. A garden measuring 4 standard acres and 2 units situated in village Shahzada Nangal, District Gurdaspur was so selected by the Petitioner and was allotted to her on 8th of June, 1950, and in lieu of this garden, she surrendered some of the agricultural land that had been allotted to her in accordance with the scheme. On 24th of March, 1955, by a notification No. SRO 697, all the agricultural property allotted in East Punjab to various displaced persons, was acquired by the Central Government and became vested in it. In accordance with the provisions of Section 10 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954 and the rules made thereunder, on 23rd of December, 1955, the Petitioner was granted the proprietary rights in the garden abovementioned by the issue of a sanad executed in her favour on behalf of the Central Government. Later, it appears that the rehabilitation department transferred some evacuee land to' the Market Committee of Gurdaspur. The Petitioner alleged that a portion of the land so transferred belonged to her, being part of the garden abovementioned, and she brought a suit to challenge this transfer by the Central Government. In a written statement filed on behalf of the Central Government on 27th of April, 1957, the Central Government admitted that the particular portion, which was the subject matter of the suit had been transferred to the Market Committee by mistake and that the grant in favour of the Market Committee was being corrected to that extent. That suit was consequently decided accordingly. Later, the Petitioner developed the land into building plots and sold the same to a large number of persons, some of whom actually constructed the houses on the plots so purchased. On 21st of February, 1961, on a reference being made by the Managing Officer to Mr. Tandon exercising' the delegated powers of the Chief Settlement Commissioner at Jullundur, the latter held that the area. covered by the above -Mentioned garden in village Shahzada Nangal happened to, fee within the urban limits of the Gurdaspur town and that, consequently, could not have been allotted' as a provincial garden, and finding that the same had been allotted by mistake, cancelled the proprietary rights and sent the papers back to the Managing Officer for taking further action. The Petitioner has come up to this Court challenging the above -mentioned order, which is annexure 'E' to the petition.;