- (1.) Jagtar Singh petitioner, a displaced person from villages Khai Bodla and Jalle-Alla, District Bahawalpur, now forming part of Pakistan on oral verification of his claim and was allotted on temporary basis evacuee land 21 standard acres 1 unit in area situate in village Sawani Rangranwali, district Hissar, on 17th March, 1956. He obtained possession thereof on 10th April, 1956. The Section Officer-cum-Managing Officer respondent No. 3 cancelled the above allotment on 10th January, 1961 (Annexure A). The petitioner's appeal against the above order before the Assistant Settlement Commissioner respondent No. 2 failed (Annexure B) and so did his revision petition before the Chief Settlement Commissioner respondent No. 1 (Annexure C). He has prayed in the present proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution for setting aside the aforesaid three orders (Annexures A to C) mainly on the grounds that respondent No. 1 did not serve on him any notice prior to the cancellation of his allotment and that in any case he was entitled to retain the land under Rule 63 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Rules, 1955, on payment of the sale price mentioned in Rule 56.
(2.) The respondents in their written statement maintained that the petitioner was served with a show cause notice before his allotment of the land was cancelled, that the allotment was made to him on oral verification of his land claim which on receipt of revenue records from Bahawalpur State proved to be wrong as no land was shown in his name therein and that Rule 63 did not apply to his case as he did not enter the land as a non-claimant. The order of the three respondents very explicitly mentioned that a show cause notice was served on the petitioner before the impugned order by respondent No. 3 was passed. This is also borne out by the recitals in the three orders. The petitioner contended before the Assistant recitals in the three orders. The petitioner contended before the Assistant Settlement Commissioner that the land was held by him jointly with his grandfather Jalla Singh son of Darbar Singh in village Jalle-Alla, Tehsil Bahawal Nagar, Bahawalpur State, but he produced no evidence in support of his contention and the revenue records received from Bahawalpur State also lent no support to his claim. He even failed to prove his alleged relationship with Jalla Singh. The Chief Settlement Commissioner in his order has specifically motioned that the petitioner before him also failed to substantiate that he held any land in Bahawalpur State or that he was in any way related to Jalla Singh. Therefore, it cannot be said that the impugned orders were passed before issuing a show cause notice to the petitioner and that he had no opportunity to substantiate his claim to retain that land in dispute. Furthermore, Rule 63 also does not entitle him to retain the land on payment of the prescribed price thereof to the Government. The Rule runs as :- "63. Where any land has been allotted to a displaced person who does not hold any verified claim in respect of agricultural land, such land may be transferred to such person if he - (a) makes an initial payment of 10 per cent of land at the time of transfer of the land and (b) agrees to pay the balance of the value of the land in fifteen equal annual instalments". The land was not allotted to the petitioner as non-claimant. He obtained allotment by representing to the Department that he held land in Bahawalpur State which ultimately turned out to be untrue. The three respondents very legitimately observed that since the petitioner obtained the allotment by fraud he was not entitled to retain it, when the fraud came to light, on payment of the prescribed price. The Rule does not make it obligatory on the Department to give land to such allottees on payment of sale price. The word used is 'may' and not 'shall'. The word 'may' has been used in similar context in Rule 26 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Rules, 1955. In the case, Sodhi Harbakhsh Singh V/s. The Central Government and others, 1962 64 PunLR 629 it was held : "That ordinarily where the legislature uses the expression 'may' when clothing an authority with the exercise of certain powers the meaning is that such exercise is discretionary and there is no obligation on the part of the authority concerned to do the act which it is merely authorised to do. In the peculiar context of a provision of law the Court may be compelled to conclude that the provision does cast an obligation on the concerned authority, but such an unusual construction is not be resorted to lightly and must be justified by the scheme of the provision in question.
(3.) That, reading Rules 25 and 26 the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Rules together it is found that the content of each is different and there is no justification for importing into Rule 26, the obligation which perhaps exists under Rule 25, the pre-existing conditions in the two rules being different. The expression "may" used in Rule 26 cannot be taken as "must". Rule 26 does not cast any obligation on the authorities to transfer allottable property to a non-claimant in whose occupation such property may happen to be, and merely vests a power in the authority concerned to make the transfer or not according to the circumstances". Applying the test laid down in the aforesaid authority the use of the word "may" in Rule 63 cannot mean "must". The discretion remained with the Department to transfer the land to the non-claimant on payment of sale price. The petitioner has failed to substantiate any one of the grounds on which he assails the order sought to be quashed. The writ petition fails and is dismissed with costs.;