- (1.) This judgment will dispose of Civil Writs Nos. 1049 and 1779 of 1973, which involve common questions of law and fact. The facts are being given from Civil Writ No. 1049 of 1973.
(2.) Briefly the case of the petitioner is that he is a displaced person from West Pakistan. He was allotted 11 Standard Acres and 9-3/4 units of land in village Kheri Ghulam Ali, Hadbast No. 83, and 8 Standard Acres and 3 Units of land in village Bahupur, Hadbast No. 131, Tehsil Guhla, District Karnal on February 5, 1964 and February 19, 1964, respectively, in lieu of the land left by him in Pakistan. Subsequently, proprietary rights in the aforesaid land were given to the petitioner. Before the allotment and grant of proprietary rights in the land, the petitioners, in 1961, had agreed to sell half of the land to Atma Ram, deceased. He sold the land situated in village Kheri Ghulam Ali, to Arjan Singh etc. Atma Ram deceased, filed a civil suit for the specific performance of the agreement entered into by the petitioner with him. The Senior Subordinate Judge, Karnal passed a decree in favour of Atma Ram, deceased, on October 31, 1968. He filed a regular first appeal No. 443 of 1968 against the decree which came up for preliminary hearing before P.C. Jain, J. The learned Judge admitted the appeal on December 17, 1968 and granted ad-interim stay with a further direction that the appellant be restrained from alienating the land in dispute. The Managing Officer, respondent No. 3, sent a report to the Chief Settlement Commissioner, Haryana, respondent No. 2, to the effect that the area allotted to the petitioner in village Kheri Ghulam Ali was assessed at the rate of twelve Annas whereas it should have been assessed at the rate of sixteen Annas, because irrigation from Bhakra Canal had started in the year 1958. He stated that valuation of field Nos. 99/3 and 104/19/1 was fixed as Barani while it should have been fixed as canal irrigated. According to him 2 Standard Acres of land in excess was allotted to the petitioner in village Kheri Ghulam Ali and 6 units of land in village Bahupur. The Chief Settlement Commissioner, respondent No. 2, cancelled the allotment of the petitioner to the extent of 2 Standard Acres and 6 Units, from village Bahupur, vide order Annexure 'A'. The petitioner, at the time of cancellation of the allotment, it is alleged, requested the Chief Settlement Commissioner that till the decision of regular first appeal, the allotment be not cancelled and if at all it was to be cancelled, then the area retrieved from the petitioner be transferred to him at reserved price. The Chief Settlement Commissioner, it is stated, did not keep this contention in view at the time of decision of the case. He thereafter, went up in revision before the Secretary, Rehabilitation, Haryana State, under Section 33 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), but the same was dismissed in limine, on November 14, 1972, vide order Annexure 'C'. It is also stated that the area of the petitioner had been retrieved from the land situated in village Bahupur without affecting that of the vendees. The petitioner has challenged the aforementioned orders. The writ petition has been contested by the respondents.
(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner, has raised the following contentions in this writ petition :- (i) that proprietary rights were conferred on the petitioner in respect of the land in dispute. The Chief Settlement Commissioner had no jurisdiction to cancel the allotment unless a finding was given by him that the so called excess area had been obtained by the petitioner by fraud, mis-representation or concealment of any material fact; (ii) That the case of the petitioner is covered by the Punjab Government decision conveyed to the Land Acquisition Collector, vide endorsement dated June 14, 1955, minute of the meeting held between the representatives of the Punjab Government and Mr. Dharm Vira, Secretary, Ministry of Rehabilitation, Government of India, on September 19, 1960, and copy of the circular letter issued by the Rehabilitation Department to all the Deputy Commissioners in the State of Punjab, dated November 2, 1960; (iii) that the allotment in the case of the petitioner, had been revised after the passage of a long time without dealing with the question of delay; and (iv) that even if some excess area was to be retrieved from the land allotted to the petitioner, it was the duty of the rehabilitation authorities to offer the same to the petitioner for purchase at reserve price.;