R. BALIA, J. - (1.) THE petitioners were evacuees and in settlement of their claim, they were allotted land by the order dated March 24, 1966 vide Sanad No. 5659 supplimentary A letter was issued to the Tehsildar Anoopgarh dated March 24, 1966 informing him about the said allotment by the Settlement cum-Managing Officer, Sri Ganganagar. This letter interalia stated that the land which has been allotted to the petitioner was evacuee agricultural land acquired under S. 12 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation & Rehabilitation) Act, 1954. Ex. 1 is the letter addressed to Tehsildar, Anoopgarh by the Settle-ment-cum-Managing Officer, Sri Ganganagar giving the details of land and the name of allottees. Receipts of this letter by Tehsildar, Anocpgarh has not been disputed any where.
(2.) THE petitioner having failed to secure mutation in his name of the land in question, at the hands of Tehsildar in the first instance approached this Court by way of S. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1839 of 1982 (Sahib Singh etc Vs. Tehsildar etc.) decided on March 3, 1982. THE Court directed that in compliance of the letter, the respondents are duty bound to dispose of the applications, if any made within a reasonable period; and if the Tehsildar does not dispose of the application then the petitioner can take the proper action according to law. In terms of the aforesaid direction, the petitioner approached Tehsildar, Anoopgarh in pursuance of Ex. 1 for making necessary entries in the revenue record. The Tehsildar by his order Ex. 6 dated November 21, 1983 went on to hold that the land mentioned in Ex. 1 did not form part of compensation pool. That, Maslim Khatedar of land in question migrated to Pakistan only in Indo-Pak war in the year 1965. He also held that land in question is the land of State Government reserved for Displaced Persons (Pong Dam Oustees) and is not the part of the compensation pool. The Tehsildar also referred to a letter dated July 30,1983 containing a general statement that 'sanad' issued around 1966 have been issued with reference to Khasra numbers and if any'sanad' has been issued thereafter, the same has been issued by the concurrence of the Tehsildar. On that basis the 'sanad' in question was treated to be forged. In reply to the writ petition, the findings recorded by Tehsildar have been reiterated. It was also stated that after holding an enquiry into revenue record of the State, land was not found to be of compensation pool. However, the facts that letter Ex. 1 dated March 24, 1966 which is alleged to have been issued by Settlement-Cum-Managing Officer to Tehsildar, Anupgarh describing the property in dispute as part of compensation pool and allotted to the petitioner, has not been disputed. It has also been mentioned in the order that according to letter dated July 30, 1983 land in question is entered in the name of petitioners in basic register. However its, genuineness was doubted. The two undisputed facts which emerge out of the pleadings of parties and impugned order are firstly that Settlement-Cum-Managing Office of Rehabilitation Department had issued letter dated March 24, 1966 to Tehsildar Anupgarh mentioning the property in question as part of compensation pool. The letter also mentions the fact of allotment in favour of petitioners. Secondly letter dated July 30, 1983 on which reliance has been placed by Tehsildar in his impugned order has not been produced, but the order itself records that name of the petitioner finds place in basic register. It is not the case of respondents either that settlement and rehabilitation department ever informed that land in question is not part of compensation pool. On the contrary the fact that rehabilitation department is dealing with the property as part of compensation pool remain staring on the face of record. This Court on more than one occasion opined that where the lands in dispute is part of compensation pool and are dealt with as Evacuee property by the authorities entrusted with the Evacuee properties and on that basis lands have been allotted in favour of the persons, the State Government having not challenged the order of allotment passed in favour of the allottees in accordance with the procedure laid down for Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954, could not challenge those orders is ancilliary proceedings. The Court held that State Government and its officers have no jurisdiction to refuse to implement the orders issued by the authorities under the Act of 1954 on the ground that the said orders are illegal or without jurisdiction. Reference in this connection may be made to Smt. Raji Bai through her General Power of Attorney Holder, Shri Om Prakash Vs. The Union of India (1), wherein his Lordship relying on the earlier unreported decision passed in Ishwari Prasad vs. U. O. I. (2), held as under :- "i am of the view that the aforesaid observations fully govern the present case in as much as it was open to the State Government to challenge the order of allotment made in favour of the petitioner by resort to appropriate proceedings under the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954. The State Government, having failed to challenge, the said order, cannot ignore the same".
(3.) THE same view was taken by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Bishan Das Vs. Union of India (3) wherein it was observed as under : - "we, therefore, allow the appeal and set aside the order dated October 21, 1973 of the learned single Judge dismissing the writ petition filed by the petitioner-appellant. A direction is issued to respondent No. 4 (Tehsildar Colonisation Gharsana) not to proceed with the proceedings under S. 91 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956 (No. XV of 1956) and the aforesaid respondent is further restrained from interfering with the possession of the petitioner over the land in question of Khasra No. 2 covered by the letter Ex. 1. Respondent No. 4 is further restrained from making any order of ' allotment of the land in question (Khasra No. 2) covered by the letter Ex. 1". The principles enunciated in the aforesaid decisions are fully applicable to the facts of the present case. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, respondents had no authority to interfere with the order of allotment made in favour of petitioner as conveyed to them vide Ex. 1 and allot the land to somebody else as State land. The Tehsildar, Anupgarh had no jurisdiction in the facts and circumstances of the case to deal with the questions whether property in question was part of compensation pool or whether it was an Evacuee Property at all. It had also no jurisdiction to record a finding on the genuineness of entry made in the basic register of Rehabilitation Department, which undoubtedly exist in the name of petitioner as per his own order. Only authority who had the jurisdiction to deal with these questions were the authorities under Displaced Persons (Compensation & Rehabilitation) Act, 1954 in appropriate proceedings instituted before them. ;