- (1.) Satinderpal and another have filed this appeal under Clause X of the Letters Patent, against the judgment of a learned Single Judge of this Court dated September 30, 1975, by which their petition C.W.P. No. 1820 of 1966 was dismissed.
(2.) Brief facts of the case may be stated thus :- Bashir Hussain and Nur Hussain were owners of land measuring 66 Kanals situated within the revenue estate of Jullundur in equal shares - half-share out of the undivided share was mortgaged in favour of Smt. Durga Devi widow of Amar Chand. The owners of the land migrated to Pakistan at the time of the partition of country. The competent officer auctioned half-share which was mortgaged with Smt. Durga Devi on June 6, 1960 and the same was purchased by Kaurmal son of Hussan Dass. The Sale Certificate was also issued in his favour on March 5, 1963. The remaining half-share remained with Smt. Durga Devi as a lessee. Bhola, a displaced person, was put in possession of the land by Smt. Durga Devi as a sub-lessee. This half-share was auctioned by the Rehabilitation Department of the State of Punjab on August 28, 1964, as the same had vested in it under 'Package Deal'. It was purchased by the applicants for Rs. 16,825/-. The bid was accepted by the Tehsildar (Sales) on September 23, 1964, and a Sale Certificate was issued in their favour on September 24, 1964. The applicants are alleged to have taken possession of land in dispute on October 1, 1964. Bhola filed an application for purchase of the land before the Regional Settlement Commissioner, Jullundur, on the ground that he was a sub-lessee. It was dismissed by the Settlement Officer (Urban Lands) Jullundur vide order dated March 13, 1963. Aggrieved from the order of the Settlement Officer, Bhola preferred an appeal before the Regional Settlement Commissioner which was dismissed on September 30, 1964, being barred by limitation. Still dissatisfied, a revision was preferred by him before the Deputy Chief Settlement Commissioner who accepted the same and remanded the case to the Regional Settlement Commissioner for decision on merits. The Regional Settlement Commissioner in turn remanded the case to the Managing Officer on February 8, 1965 for determination of eligibility of Bhola regarding the transfer of the land. The Managing Officer rejected the application of Bhola vide order dated April 23, 1965. On appeal before the Authorised Settlement Commissioner, Bhola did not meet with any success as the appeal was rejected on June 3, 1965. Still aggrieved, a revision was preferred which was allowed by the Chief Settlement Commissioner on March 30, 1966 holding that he was entitled to the transfer of the land as a sub-lessee. The appellants' revision petition under Section 33 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) was rejected by the Central Government on July 12, 1966. The appellants challenged the legality and propriety of the orders of the Chief Settlement Commissioner and the Central Government through C.W.P. No. 1820 of 1966 which was partly accepted with a direction that the land in dispute be divided between the appellants and the legal representatives of Bhola deceased and the land be allotted to the legal representatives of Bhola deceased of the value of Rs. 15,000/- and the appellants of the value of Rs. 1825/-. Dissatisfied from the judgment of the learned Single Judge as earlier observed, the present appeal under Clause X of the Letters Patent has been preferred.
(3.) It was contended by Mr. Jagn Nath Kaushal, Senior Advocate, learned counsel for the appellants, that the Central Government had very limited interest in the property under the 'Package Deal', that the said limited interest confined to satisfying an unsatisfied claimant who had abandoned land in Pakistan as those claimants had got a sort of charge over the entire compensation pool for the satisfaction of their claims; that Bhola deceased was not an unsatisfied claimant and that the authorities under the Act had no jurisdiction whatsoever to transfer the land out of the land transferred to the State Government under the 'Package Deal' to a sub-lessee. A similar contention was raised before the learned Single Judge but the same was repelled on the basis of the judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in Bishan Singh and others v. Chief Settlement Commissioner and others, 1973 PunLJ 183. The relevant observations out of that judgment read as under :- "The provisions of this and the other sections of the Rehabilitation Act and the Rules made thereunder make it amply clear that the primary purpose for which the compensation pool is to be utilised is, as stated in the opening part of Section 14, "for the purpose of payment of compensation and rehabilitation grants to displaced persons". No doubt under Section 20, the Central Government has unfettered power to dispose of this property by allotment, lease or otherwise to the displaced persons or other persons, yet the primary object, as mentioned in Section 14 and in the Rules, cannot be given a go-by. Rule 66, which we have already noticed, makes it amply clear that those displaced persons who are settled in Punjab have got a preferential right for allotment being made to them in Punjab and the same Will apply to the States of Punjab and Haryana as constituted after re-organisation. Rule 67-A also makes it amply clear that such displaced persons having claims in respect of agricultural land cannot get compensation except by way of getting land. In a way, therefore, the unsatisfied claimants have got a sort of charge over the entire compensation pool for the satisfaction of their claims in accordance with the Rules. Even on behalf of the State of Punjab in this case it was not denied that the liability to satisfy the unsatisfied claimants continues to be attached to the property which the State Government has acquired by virtue of the 'Package Deal'. The property which the State Government has come to acquire under the 'Package Deal', therefore, must be taken to be impressed with the charge or liability for the satisfaction of the unsatisfied claimants who are entitled to get allotment in the State of Punjab under the Rules made under the Rehabilitation Act. The State Government has no authority whatever to make such allotment or pay compensation to such unsatisfied claimants. Such a compensation can be paid only under the Rehabilitation Act and only the authorities under that Act can make allotment or transfer of the property in the compensation pool by way of such compensation. ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... As regard the second question, it is now admitted by the respondents that the surplus property which is the subject matter of the 'Package Deal' belongs to the State Government, but the same is impressed with a charge for the satisfaction of the unsatisfied claimants. This property, therefore, is, in a way, a joint property of the State Government and the Central Government for some specific purposes only. Under the Rehabilitation Act the Central Government is interested only in ensuring that all the unsatisfied claimants are duly satisfied. On the other hand it is the interest of the State Government that, according to its policy decision, those persons who are in long possession of the evacuee property, though unauthorised or without any claims, should not be disturbed, obviously because if they are disturbed that will cause untold hardship to those who have settled on the land and have improved the same in a number of years ... ... ... ... ... ... ... .";