N.P. Gupta, J. - (1.) THE appellant by this appeal seeks to challenge the order of the learned Single Judge dt. 09.12.1996 dismissing the appellant's writ petition.
(2.) NECESSARY facts are that the petitioner was allotted land in question total measuring 23 bighas and 4 biswas in Chak No. 26 P.T.D. in Sq. Nos. 305/355 and 304/356 in the year 1976. However, on a complaint made about the allottee being not bonafide agriculturist, and being employee of the R.S.E.B. This allotment was cancelled vide order dt. 24.10.1980 by the Dy. Commissioner (Colonisation). This order has been produced in the writ petition as Annexure -1. Appeal against that order filed before the Additional Colonisation Commissioner, and revision before the Board of Revenue also were dismissed vide orders 18.07.1981 and 26.03.1984 respectively. The ground given by the Dy. Commissioner (Colonisation) was that the certificate issued by the Assistant Engineer, R.S.E.B. dt. 05.09.1980 shows that the appellant was employed on the post of Helper -II since 14.03.1964 which fact was admitted by the appellant in his statement dt. 25.09.1980, and had resigned from job 21/2 years ago, on account of having been allotted the land, and thus he has concealed his profession to be Government servant, and wrongly projected himself to be agriculturist. It was found that had this fact been disclosed, he would not have been allotted land. It was also found that he has not disclosed to be holding any land in the name of his family members, or qua himself, while on verification from Tehsildar it was found that his father was holding 7 bigha 10 biswa of Barani land and 10 bighas Nahari land having been purchased, and another 4 bigha 18 biswas of land was also there with his father in Chak No. 16 PS Murabba No. 8. Thus, allotment having been obtained by concealment of these facts was cancelled.
(3.) BEFORE the appellate authority it was argued that the employment was on Work Charge basis, and was of temporary nature; regarding the lands it was contended that his notional share would have been very meagre. However, it was found by the learned appellate authority that even work charge employee has to spent full time on job leaving no time available for cultivation, and thus it cannot be said that primary source of income was agriculture. Thus, interference in the order of the original authority was declined. It may be noticed here that the appellate authority did not dilate upon the aspect of any land having been held by the appellant, and that fact having been concealed.;