Jawahar Lal Gupta, J. - (1.) THE petitioner impugns the order passed by the Chief Settlement Commission. Haryana, A copy of this order has been annexed as Annexure P -3 with the writ petition. By this order, the allotment of 12.8. standard acres of land made in favour of Lakshmi widow of Lal Chand, was cancelled on the ground that, in view of the decision of their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Gram Panchayat, Jamalpur v. Malvinder Singh, 1985 P.L.J. 463 the Panchayat land could not have been allotted by the authorities under the provisions of the Administration of Evacuees Property Act, 1950. Directions for allotment of alternative land were given after ascertaining the particulars of the local representatives of the allottee.
(2.) THE petitioner impugns this order on the ground that the decision in Malvinder Singh's case (supra) could not be applied retrospectively. It is also submitted that the principles of natural justice had not been followed as the land having been sold to respondent No. 6 by the allottee or successor -in -interest, no order of cancellation could be passed and that the direction given regarding the allotment of alternative land was wholly vague as no time limit had been stipulated. The respondents have controverted the claim made by the petitioner. In the written statement filed on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 to 4, it has been inter alia pointed out that the petitioner had effective alternative remedy under the Act and that the impugned order is in complete conformity with the decision of the Supreme Court in Malvinder Singh's case (supra). It was been further mentioned that the land allotted to Lakshmi in fact formed part of the Shamilat land and vested in the Gram Panchayat. The order of allotment was void ab initio and consequently the petitioner can make no grievance of the fact that the Chief Settlement Commissioner has cancelled the allotment. Various grounds taken by the petitioner have also been controverted.
(3.) SEPARATE written statement has been filed on behalf of respondent No.5, viz., Gram Panchayat and a preliminary objection has been raised. It has been pointed out that the petitioner has made false statement. According to the respondents, the impugned order had been passed after hearing the petitioner. However, in para 12 (iii) and (iv), it has been wrongly stated that the order was passed without the grant of any opportunity. On merits, the pleas raised by the respondent -Panchayat are broadly the same as those raised on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 to 4.;