- (1.) The petitioner impugns the proceedings which culminated in the passing of the final order dated December 4, 1978 (Annexure P.3) by the Deputy Secretary Rehabilitation-cum-Settlement Commissioner, Haryana. These proceedings deal with the right of the petitioner to acquire the evacuee land (detailed in that order) under the Press Note dated May 17, 1962. This Press Note is referred to and reproduced in an earlier Division Bench judgment of this Court in Bishan Singh v. Chief Settlement Commissioner, 1973 PunLJ 183. The material part of it lays down that the surplus rural evacuee properties purchased by the State Government from the Government of India with effect from April, 1, 1961, may be transferred at the fixed prices to the persons who fell in the following categories, i.e., lessees, tenants and other occupants on the terms and conditions set out below subject to the condition that these lands not be required for allotment to unsatisfied claimants :- ''(2) Unauthorised occupants in continuous possession since Kharif 1960 or earlier.-- Persons falling under this category can have the lands in their possession transferred in their names by paying the prices as under :- (i) Members of Scheduled Castes .... @ Rs. 454/- per standard acre. (ii) Members of Backward Classes ... @ Rs. 675/- per standard acre. (iii) Others, at 75% of the average prices fetched in the course of auctions of surplus euacuee properties held from June to December, 1961 ... ... The concessions referred to above will be allowed only to the extent of enabling an occupant to buy 5 standard across of land or a person with small holding to make up his total holding to the same limit''. What has been held vide order Annexure P.3 is that the petitioner (described as 'Mandir Bawa Surajgir' therein and now mentioned as 'Murti Shri Hanumanji Mandir Bawa Surajgir') has not been in cultivating possession of the suit land since Kharif 1960 and, therefore, it was not entitled to the transfer of the said land. The learned counsel for the petitioner urges with some amount of vehemence that this conclusion of the Settlement Commissioner is unwarranted and is not supported by the evidence on record. He claims that possession of the Murti through its tenants is established on record. Having given my serious consideration to the entire matter in the light of the above noted Press Note and the submissions of the learned counsel, I find no merit in this petition.
(2.) The Press Note lays down in no uncertain terms that persons whose possession can be regularised or are entitled to acquire the title to the land in their possession, have to be ''unauthorised occupants''. Thus the Press Note itself envisages that there is a clear distinction between 'possession' and 'occupation' and it is so in the light of the ordinary dictionary meaning of the two words also. 'Occupation' essentially means holding physical possession of a property. Thus, whereas an occupant is necessarily in possession of a property, a person in possession of the same may not be in its occupation. 'Possession' in law means physical as well as constructive possession. In the instant case the petitioner may be in constructive possession of the property but still it cannot claim to be in occupation of the same. In view of this I find no infirmity in the impugned order Annexure P.3.
(3.) Thus this petition fails and is dismissed but with no order as to costs.;