I.S Tiwana, J. - (1.) The petitioner impugns the order of the Financial Commissioner, Revenue, and Secretary to Government, Haryana, Rehabilitation Department, Chandigarh,dated 13th April, 1979 (Annexure P.4) whereby an area of 6 standard acres and to be taken out of his allotment. Briefly the 14 units has been ordered facts are as follows.
(2.) The petitioner was allotted 11 standard acres and 7 units of land in lieu of the land abandoned by him in Pakistan Later on it was found IU this allotment was in excess to the extent of 2 standard acres and 2) units. The mistake is stated to have been caused on account of the fact that while determining his entitlement for allotment, the area left by him in Pakistan was taken to be Chahi instead of Barani and this fact came to the notice of the authorities after the receipt of the relevant record from the Pakistan Government. Before the order of cancellation of 2 standard acres and 2-1/2 units could be implemented by actually retrieving this area from the possession of the petitioner, consolidation proceedings intervened and as a result of the same the originally allotted 11 standard acres and 7 units of land to the petitioner were evaluated by the Consolidation Authorities at 36 standard acres and 6 units. In view of this valuation the authorities under the Displaced Persons (Compensation & Rehabilitation) Act, 1954, want to take away 6 standard acres and 14 units of land from the holding of the petitioner, i.e., in the same proportion as the excess area had vis-a-vis the land allotted to him by the Rehabilitation Authorities The whole case of the petitioner is that the authorities are committing a mistake in taking oat 6 standard acres and 14 units of land instead of 2 standard acres and 2-1/2 units. In a nut shell, the submission of the petitioner is that only an area measuring 2 standard acres and 2-1/2 units as per the latest valuation put forth by the Consolidation Authorities should be token out. I see no merit in this stand of the learned counsel for the petitioner. On the face of it the plea is unreasonable and unsustainable.
(3.) Evidently the criteria for evaluating land by the two departments, i.e., the Rehabilitation and the Consolidation, is not the same. They have their different standards for this purpose If the authorities concerned retrieve out of the land allotted to the petitioner after the consolidation proceedings area in the same proportion in which it was found to be excess with him by the Rehabilitation Authorities, there is nothing unfair or inequitable about it. The submission of Mr. Cheema that this increase in valuation or area was solely on account of the labour and toil put in by the petitioner, is devoid of merit. This increase is on account of different standards of valuation fixed by the two departments. This stage the learned counsel for the respondent authorities has brought to my notice the State Government instructions No. RI/46867, 46884 dated 8th Nov., 1960 dealing with the subject "Deduction areas from the allotment of Agricultural land". These read as follows "A question has arisen as to at what rate the area to be cancelled from the allotment of an allottee where consolidation operation has been completed, should be deducted in implementation of the cancellation order passed by the Rehabilitation Authorities. After careful consideration it has been decided that area to be deducted in such cases should be assessed in the same proportion in which the allotted land of the allottee has been deluded during consolidation of holdings. For illustration the official example is quoted 'A' was allotted 20 standard acres of land on Rehabilitation value in a village. During consolidation operation he has been given 15 S.A. on the value of the Consolidation Department. An area of 4 standard acres is required to be cancelled from his allotment. It should be cancelled like this 15x4/20:3 standard acres according to this valuation of the Consolidation Department." It is, however, contended by Mr. Cheema, learned Senior Advocate for the petitioner that these instructions have no legal sanction behind them as the same have not been issued under any of the provisions of the Act referred to above. According to the learned counsel, the State Government, as a matter of fact, is not competent to issue any instructions dealing with the cancellation of land. Even if this submission of Mr. Cheema is accepted the learned counsel appearing for the respondent authorities has not brought 10 my notice any provision under which the above noted instructions might be said to have been issued-still as has already been pointed out by me above. I find no unreasonableness or irrationality in the method and manner of retrieving the excess land from the petitioner vide the impugned order. At this stage Mr. Cheema mikes a reference to Rule 56 of the Displaced Persons Compensation and Rehabilitation) Rules, 1955, to contend that the respondent authorities can only take away 2 standard acres and 2-1/2 units from the allotment of the petitioner. Firstly, I find that this rule has nothing to do with the controversy in question as it only deals with the method as to how a standard acre has to be converted into cash. Secondly, as already pointed out above, the Rehabilitation Authorities are only taking away 2 standard acres and 2-1/2 units of land out of the allotment made by them and it is only on account of the intervention if the consolidation proceedings before the retrieving of this area fro m the petitioner that these 2 standard acres and 2-1/2 units as per the evaluation of the Consolidation Authorities have become equal to 5 standard acres and 14 units.;