- (1.) THE petitioners have challenged the legality of the order dated 14. 4. 1986 (Anx. 6) passed by the District Collector and Authorised Chief Settlement Commissioner, Sri Ganganagar (respondent No. 1), whereby he dismissed their revision petition filed under section 24 of the Displaced Persons (C and R) Act, 1954 (In short the Act) and upheld the order dated 28. 8. 1984 (Annex. 5) of the Authorised Settlement Commissioner-cum-Additional Collector Sri Ganganagar, who in his turn had dismissed their appeal against the order dated 17. 7. 1984 (Anx. 4) passed by the District Rehabilitation Officer-cum-Managing Officer, Sri Ganganagar (Respondent No. 4 ).
(2.) BRIEFLY, the relevant facts are that agricultural land bearing Khasra Nos. 97, 162 and 230 measuring 6 Bighas 4 biswas, 6 Bighas 5 biswas and 3 Bighas respectively total area 15 bighas 9 biswas, situated in village Rajasar was allotted to petitioner No. l Khanchand by the Settlement Commissioner-cum-Managing Officer, Sri Ganganagar some times in the year 1973 and a 'sanad' thereof was issued on 8. 12. 1976 vide Anx. 2. It is alleged that the possession of the said land was given to petitioner Khanchand through his power of attorney holders Parmatmasingh and Ujagarsingh, and that the said land has been in his cultivatory possession. The mutation on the basis of sanad Ex. 2 was also effected in the revenue record in favour of petitioner Khanchand. The petitioner transferred the land of Khasra No. 162 measuring 6 Bighas 5 biswas in favour of petitioner Omprakash and handed over the possession thereof to him by executing a registered sale-deed dated 10. 7. 1980 (Anx. 3 ). It appears that respondent Tekchand filed revision petition No. 6/80 in the court of Authorised Chief Settlement Commissioner, Sri Ganganagar, wherein he alleged that land bearing old Khasra No. 148 new Khasra No. 162 measuring 10 Bighas 4 biswas was allotted to him on 12. 2. 1967, that since the said land was Barani and Banjar, he did not take possession thereof, that now he has come to know that out of said land 6 Bighas 5 biswas land of old Khasra No. 148 has been allotted in favour of petitioner Khanchand and that a sanad has also been issued. He, therefore, prayed that allotment made in favour of Thanchand vide Anx. 2 be quashed, because no notice was given to him for cancelling his prior allotment of the said land. The respondent No. l by his order dated 18. 6. 1981 accepted the revision petition and remanded the matter to respondent No. 3 for deciding the case on merits after hearing the parties. The respondent No. 3 by his order dated 17. 7. 1984 (Anx. 4) held that Thanchand was a non-existent person because all the proceedings on his behalf were conducted by his alleged power of attorney holder Parmatma Singh illegally. He, therefore, accepted the revision petition filed by Tekchand and directed the Tehsildar, Nohar to hand over the possession of the disputed land to Tekchand. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner filed an appeal under section 22 of the Act, before the respondent No. 1, who by his order dated 28. 8. 1984 (Anx. 5) dismissed the said appeal. The revision petition filed by the petitioners against Anx. 5 before the respondent No. 1 was also dismissed by the impugned order dated 14. 4. 1986 (Anx. 6 ). Hence this writ petition. During the pendency of this writ petition, respondent No. 4 Tekchand died and as such his widow Smt. Mansa Devi was impleaded as his legal representative. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and the learned Deputy Government Advocate at length and perused the relevant record. Admittedly, Tek Chand did not file any allotment letter of the disputed land alleged to have been made in his favour in the year 1967. On the other hand, he himself had admitted that the disputed land was allotted in favour of petitioner Khanchand in the year 1973 and that a sanad Anx. 2 has also been issued. A perusal of judgment dated 19. 12. 1978 (Anx. 7) passed by the Revenue Appellate Authority, Bikaner discloses that on the application made by Smt. Parvati widow of Rameshwar and Vijay Shankar son of Rameshwar Nai, resident of Rajasar, the S. D. O. by his order dated 15. 11. 1977 had cancelled the entries made in the revenue record in respect of the disputed land made in favour of petitioner Khanchand and directed that the possession of the said land be handed over to said Smt. Parvati and Vijay Shankar. Against that order an appeal was filed by Khanchand before the R. A. A. , who by his order dated 19. 12. 1978 (Anx. 7) accepted the said appeal and set aside the order of the S. D. O. The R. A. A. , also directed that since the disputed land was recorded as an evacuee property and allotted in favour of Thanchand, the entries made in the revenue record in his favour could not be cancelled and that any person aggrieved by the impugned allotment should file a suit in the court of competent jurisdiction for its cancellation. Since the disputed land has been allotted in favour of Khanchand in the year 1973 and he has already transferred the same in favour of petitioner Omprakash through a registered sale-deed Anx. 3 the revision petition filed by Tekchand in the year 1980 before the respondent No. 3 challenging the allotment prima facie appears to be belated. If the disputed land was illegally allotted in favour of petitioner Khanchand, the sanad Anx. 2 issued in his favour can only be cancelled by a competent authority that too in accordance with law. It appears that respondent Nos. 3, 2 and 1 have dismissed petitioners' appeal and revisions solely on the ground that petitioner Khanchand was not produced in the Court and that he appeared to be a non-existent person. Apparently this approach of the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 in this behalf is wrong and faulty. It appears that respondent Nos. 1 to 3 have not cared to consider the rival contentions made by petitioners and respondent No. l on merits and also not perused the relevant record. In such circumstances, the impugned orders Anx. 6, 5 and 4 passed by respondent No. l, respondent No. 2 and respondent No. 3 respectively cannot be sustained.
(3.) ACCORDINGLY, this writ petition is allowed and the impugned orders Anx. 4,5 and 6 are hereby set aside and the matter is remanded to the District Rehabilitation-cum-Managing Officer, Sri Ganganagar, with the direction that after perusing the relevant record including, the alleged allotment of the disputed land in favour of Tekchand dated 12. 2. 1967 and after giving an opportunity to the parties concerned, he will decide the revision petition of Tekchand on merits in accordance with law. The parties are directed to appear before him on 26. 5. 1993 for further proceedings in the matter. No order as to costs. .;