HARBHAGWAN Vs. CHIEF SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a petition under Section 33 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation & Rehabilitation) Act, 1954 against the order dated 21.9.1994 passed by the Chief Settlement Commissioner, Haryana.

(2.) THE brief facts of the case are that the land in dispute measuring 15 sq. yards belong to the Rehabilitation Department was transferred to the respondent No. 4 by the Tehsildar (Sales) vide his order dated 10.1.1994. The conveyance deed was also issued on 23.2.1994. This land was transferred to respondent No. 4 under the Government instructions dated 11.7.1988 for the disposal of the evacuee property. The petitioners filed a revision petition against the above orders before the Chief Settlement Commissioner, Haryana. The main grounds of petition before the Chief Settlement Commissioner were that the land in dispute is part of the Multani Chowk which vests in the Municipal Committee Meham. The respondent No. 4 tried to grab this land by making illegal constructions on it. The respondent No. 4 first tried to grab this land through Municipal Committee by way of purchase. The committee did not sell this land to him as it was part of the chowk. Enquiries were conducted by the Tehsildar and SDO (Civil), Meham wherein it was found that the land is part of the Multani Chowk and the respondent No. 4 cannot be allowed to encroach upon this land. Civil suits were also filed by some inhabitants of the area. When the respondent No. 4 failed in his design to grab this land, he moved an application to the Tehsildar (Sales) Rohtak for transfer of this land to him on the basis of his old possession and as per the policy of the Government. He succeeded in getting the land transferred in his name and also the conveyance deed was issued to him on 23.2.1994. That the sale of this land to the respondent No. 4 was illegal as the land vests in the Municipal Committee and not in the Rehabilitation Department. The Chief Settlement Commissioner looked into this matter in detail. A number of documents by both the parties were also filed before him. The Chief Settlement Commissioner after a detailed enquiry found that the land in dispute was rightly transferred by the Tehsildar (Sales) Rohtak to the respondent No. 4 as this land belonged to the Rehabilitation Department and not to the Municipal Committee. He vide his order dated 21.9.1994 dismissed the revision petition of the petitioners. It is against the above orders of the Chief Settlement Commissioner that the present petition has been filed before me under Section 33 of the Displaced Persons (C&R) Act, 1954. The grounds of petition are the same as were taken before the Chief Settlement Commissioner.

(3.) ON careful consideration of the submissions made by the parties as well as on perusal of the record, I do not find any illegality in the impugned order of the Chief Settlement Commissioner, Haryana. It is a self speaking order. Full opportunity was given to the petitioner to prove their view point but miserably failed. Even before me they were unable to establish that the land in dispute vests in the Municipal Committee, Meham. In fact the Municipal Committee has never staked its claim on this land. It is only the petitioner who are advocating this theory. In fact as per records the land in dispute measuring just 15 sq. yards was a 'Chabutra' adjoining the house of respondent No. 4. The land under the house of the respondent No. 4 as well as 'Chabutra' were ownership of the Rehabilitation Department being evacuee property. As per records maintained by the department there is no dispute about the ownership of this land. The Ld. Counsel for the petitioners had in fact almost conceded this fact during the arguments and then he took an alternate plea that the respondent No. 4 was not eligible for transfer of this land to him as his possession over this land since 1.1.1982 was not proved. The petitioners are vainly challenging the ownership of this land perhaps under the apprehension that any construction on this land by the respondent might create some obstructions in the public way. In fact the constructions are governed by the municipal by-laws which can be resorted to if there is any unlawful construction. It also appears that the two petitioners have some personal problem with the respondent No. 4. The other residents of the area had given in writing to the Tehsildar (Sales) that the land belonged to the Custodian on which the respondent had made encroachment which was sought to be removed or price of the land to be charged from the respondent. This also shows that the petitioners do not represent the other residents of the area. The enquiries made by the SDO (C), Meham were in a different context which do not prove that the land in dispute did not belong to the Rehabilitation Department. Thus the petitioners have failed to point out any infirmity, legal or factual, in the impugned order. I do not find any reasons to interfere with the impugned order and the petition is accordingly dismissed. Announced. Petition dismissed.