- (1.) The petitioner is a displaced person from West Pakistan where he owned land in villages - Chak No. 281/HR and Chak No. 310/HR, Tehsil Fortabas in Bahawalpur State. In lieu of the land left by him in West Pakistan, he was allotted 36.5-1/2 standard acres in Chak Palliwala, Tehsil Fazilka, District Ferozepore. In the year 1965, his allotment to the extent of 19.3-1/2 standard acres was cancelled by respondent No. 2, vide his order (Annexure 'A') dated 10th May, 1965. The petitioner successfully appealed before the Settlement Commissioner and the order of the Managing Officer, respondent No. 2, was set aside, vide his order dated 6th of July, 1965. The matter was taken to the Chief Settlement Commissioner by the Department, who passed the impugned order (Annexure 'C') on 15th of December, 1966 and set aside the order of the Settlement Commissioner and restored that of the Managing Officer, respondent No. 2. It is in this situation that the present writ petition has been filed against the order of the Chief Settlement Commissioner (Annexure 'C'). Return has been filed on behalf of the Department.
(2.) The sole point for determination is whether the Chief Settlement Commissioner was justified to cancel the land in dispute on the basis of an unattested mutation and also in the absence of any registered document. On page 47, paragraph 24 of the Land Resettlement Manual, it is provided as under :- "Mutations of transfer of land from non-Muslims to Muslims decided after the 15th August, 1947 required special scrutiny. If they had been first entered before the 15th August, 1947 and were based on registered documents, effect was given to them in assessing the claim of the displaced non-Muslim ... ... ... Copies of mutations on which the orders of the Revenue Officer were not recorded were deemed to be pending mutations, on which no action was to be taken unless they were based on registered documents." It was argued by Mr. Wasu, learned counsel for the petitioner, that the Land Resettlement Manual has the force of law and that it contains the policy decision of the Government and the whole allotment was made on its basis. In Singha Mal V. The Union of India and others,1963 PunLR 59 it is held as under :- "The Land Resettlement Manual has the stamp of authority. The administrative instructions and Rules laid down in the Manual, form the essential basis for rehabilitation of displaced persons. The rights of allottees are to be determined in accordance with those rules and instructions." This authority is based on an earlier decision of the Supreme Court Dhuni Chand Hakim V. Deputy Commissioner (Deputy Custodian, Evacuee Property), Karnal, 1954 AIR(SC) 150 in which their Lordships observed as under regarding the authenticity of the book known as the Land Resettlement Manual :- "Before dealing with the validity of the impugned orders it will be necessary to refer to a compilation known as the Land Resettlement Manual for displaced persons in Punjab and Pepsu upon which great reliance was placed by Mr. Bindra on behalf of the petitioners in the course of his arguments. This book was prepared by Mr. Tarlok Singh, I.C.S., who was Director-General of Relief and Rehabilitation in East Punjab and contains the policy decisions of that Government arrived at in respect of the settlement of land upon the refugees soon after partition. It appears from this book that originally there was a temporary settlement but shortly afterwards an elaborate organization was set up to make allotment of lands on a quasi permanent basis. The displaced persons put in their claims in regard to the agricultural land they had abandoned in West Punjab and they were verified with the help of revenue records which exchanged with the West Punjab Government. The book has evidently the stamp of authority, as the foreword is written by Mr. P.N. Thapar, I.C.S., Financial Commissioner, Department of Relief and Rehabilitation, and Secretary to Punjab Government, Relief and Rehabilitation Department ... ... ... ." From the observations of the Supreme Court it is clear that the Land Resettlement Manual has the stamp of authority.
(3.) Mr. Ahluwalia, learned counsel for the respondents, has relied upon a Division Bench judgment of this Court in Civil Writ No. 491 of 1962 (Sadha Singh etc. V. Guran Ditta etc., 1965 AIR(P&H) 225 decided on 23rd September, 1964 wherein their Lordships of the Division Bench observed that paragraph 20 at page 74 of the Land Resettlement Manual did not by any means affect the question before them nor laid down any positive rule of law commending obedience. Before the aforesaid Division Bench the question was regarding a transaction which took place between two non-Muslims but in the instant case the transaction took place between non-Muslim and Muslim. Before the Division Bench, the transaction was also supported by registered document and in that situation it was held that the transaction was valid and binding. However, the observations of the Supreme Court in Dhunichand Hakim's case were not brought to the notice of the Division Bench.;