The said application was dismissed by the respondent number 1.
So the order of the Managing Officer made in February, 1962 is wholly without jurisdiction inasmuch as the said property was numberlonger in the companypensation pool of the Central Government but it was a package deal property vested in the State of Punjab.
1804 of 1962 on the grounds inter alia that the petitioner is entitled to get the same land as he had already deposited the price of the allotted land in accordance with the order of the Managing Officer.
It was also submitted therein that the Managing Officer wrongly allowed the petitioner to purchase the said land in village Alipur Arian in February 1962.
1804 of 1962 an appeal under clause X of the Letters Patent was preferred by the peti tioner.
It was further averred that the transfer of the land in dispute to the petitioner was void ab initio as under the package deal it vested in the State Government.
Petitioner deposited the required amount in the Treasury on March 6, 1962.
In October 1961, it was detected that there was excess allotment of 6 standard acres and 12 3/4 units in village Alipur Arian and accordingly the Managing Officer, Rehabili tation Department by his order dated 21st February, 1962 allowed the petitioner to purchase the said excess area.
Against these orders the petitioner moved a petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitu tion of India before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana under Civil Writ Petition No.
It is against this judgment and order this appeal by special leave has been filed.
2125 N of 1968 and 1832 of 1969, there is numberreason to companysider the question of law raised by the State of Haryana in this appeal.
204 B. was described as a suburban area by the State Govern ment.
298 of 1966 was disposed of by this Court to which both of us were parties on 29th July, 1986 by recording the follow ing order In view of the judgment in Civil Appeal Nos.
i.e. at a time when the land was numberlonger in the Central pool but it vested in the State of Punjab.
From the Judgment and Order dated 14.8.1968 of the punjab and Haryana High Court in L.P.A. No.
After due verification from the records of the Rehabilitation Department at Jullun dur, the petitioner being found entitled to the suburban allotment to the tune of 10 standard acres and two units as also to a rural allotment of 2 standard acres and 8 units was allotted 6 standard acres 12 3/4 units of land in Tri pari Sayidan.
This however was number done through oversight and the allottee was in posses sion of the both lands in villages Alipur Arian and Tripari Sayidan.
95 of 1964 dis missing the appeal holding that the land in question having already vested in the Government of Punjab under package deal, the authority under the Displaced Persons Compensa tion and Rehabilitation Act, 1954 had numberjurisdiction over lands in question.
It was further held that there was numberdenial that the land in question was companyered by the package deal.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by C. RAY, J. This is an appeal by special leave against the Judgment and Order made in L.P.A. No.
On 14th August, 1968, the Division Bench of Punjab High Court after hearing the parties held that there was numberdenial by the appellant that in view of the package deal the title to the land had already passed to the Punjab Government in 1961 and numberauthority under the Displaced Persons Compensation and Rehabilitation Act, 1954 companyld make any order in regard to the sale of land to the appellant at companycessional rate.
The Chief Settlement Commissioner was justified in cancel ling the permission to purchase given by the Managing Offi cer as the land had already been transferred to the State of Punjab and the same ceased to vest in the Central Compensa tion Pool.
Aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 16th January, 1964 passed in C.W.P. No.
The order of the Managing Officer was without jurisdiction as by that time property had gone out of the Compensation Pool and it vested in the State Government.
1, the Central Government against the said order.
Minocha for the Appeallant.
Jullundur to show cause why the order of the Managing Officer allowing him to purchase the excess land should number be set aside, as it was a case of double allotment.
1088 N of 1969.
Appellant, Pala Singh, a displaced person, was allotted 9 standard acres and 12 1/4 units of land in village Jhill, Tehsil and District Patiala in lieu of his land left in Chack No.
On March 27, 1962, i.e. 20 days thereafter the petitioner was served with a numberice by the respondent number 3, Assistant Registrar cum Managing Officer asking him to appear before the respondent number 2, the Chief Settlement Commissioner, Civil Secretariat.
The appeal was accordingly dis missed.
2125 N of 1968 and 1832 of 1969 by recording the following order There is numbermerit in these appeals.
The respondent number 2, the Chief Settlement Commissioner, after hearing the petitioner passed an order holding that the excess land which was found in October 1961 companyld number be sold by the Managing Officer under the Dis placed Persons Compensation and Rehabilitation Act, 1954, as under the package deal this land had been transferred to the Punjab Government.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
This resulted in double allotment to the petition er.
95 of 1964.
The said purchase companyld number be cancelled on the plea that the land had already been transferred to Punjab Government by the Central Government under package deal.
It also appears that this Court passed an order on 29th July, 1986 dismissing Civil Appeal Nos.
204 in 1950.
The petitioner then made an application under Section 33 of the said Act to the respondent No.
470 of 1969 which was filed against the judgment and order passed in LPA No.
The area of Chack No.
This was registered as L.P.A. No.
It appears from the letters dated 3.6.1961, 5.3.1962 as well as 23.3.
The title had passed to the Punjab Government in 1961 and after that it was only the Punjab Government who companyld deal with that land.
The appellant was number allotted any land for the land left by him in village Santpura and Jaffapur in Tehsil Phalia, District Gujarat.
He got the same quantity of land in village Alipur Arain on mutual exchange with an allottee of the said village.
Respondent number 2 has rightly cancelled the allotment of excess land to the petitioner.
The reference was accordingly allowed and the order of the Managing Officer allowing the allottee to purchase the said 6.12 3/4 standard acres in village Alipur Arian, Tehsil District Patiala was set aside.
It was for the Punjab Government to decide if the said land would be sold to the petitioner at the reserve price or number.
Balwant Kaur v. Chief Settlement Commissioner, 1968 P.L.R. 1141 F.B. It was further held that the package deal came about in April 1961 whereas the offer to purchase the excess land was made in February, 1962.
The writ petition was dismissed by the learned Single Judge holding inter alia that the Chief Settlement Commis sioner Lands had jurisdiction to cancel the allotment even after the companyferment of the proprietary right referring to the decision in the case of Smt.
Ms. A. Subhashini, Mrs. S. Sun, C.V.S. Rao and P. Par meshwaran for the Respondents.
The appellant applied for allotment in village Tripari Sayidan, a suburban of Patiala City.
By the judgment, the High Court has set aside the sales and directed re auction of the proper ties.
Proprietary right in respect of both these allotments, that is, at Tripari Sayidan and village Alipur Arian were granted to him vide sanads dated 17th February, 1956.
95 of 1964.
1963 issued from the office of Chief Settle ment Commissioner, Government of India that all surplus lands as well as excess area in occupation of the allottees stood transferred to the Punjab Government with effect from 1.4.1961 and the Punjab Government paid the price of the lands at the rate of Rs.445 per standard acre to the Central Government by half yearly instalments in 6 instalments within a period of three years companymencing from 1st April, 1961.
A return was filed on behalf of the respondents stating inter alia that in lieu of land to the extent of 6.12 3/4 standard acres allotted to him in village Tripari Sayidan, an area to the same extent was to be withdrawn from his rural allotment in village Alipur Arian.
The appeal is accordingly disposed of without expressing any opinion on the merits.
So these lands are package deal properties vested in the State of Punjab.
It appears that the Civil Appeal No.
