The benefit of such right will ensure to his heirs and successors.
The High Court by its judgment and order dated September 25, 1962 set side the aforesaid thee impugned orders holding that they were wholly without jurisdiction and the Tehsildar cum Managing Officer was number authorised to allot to the appellants the land which was already companyprised in a subsisting valid allotment of the respondent.
Clause 3 1 .
From the Judgment and Order dated 25 9 67 of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Civil Writ No.
Clause 3 3 .
They are The allottee is entitled to right of use and occupation of the property until such time as the property remains vested in the Custodian.
It is against this judgment and order of the High Court that the present appeal is directed.
The Consolidation Officer further observed that since it appeared from a perusal of the companyy of the Sanad allotment that the entire kurrah companysisted of almost evacuee land bearing khasra numbers mentioned in the Sanad of allotment, the respondent companyld, on the receipt of the record, get the area at the place where, according to him, the evacuee land mentioned by him in his application was situate.
Curiously enough, the Assistant Settlement Commissioner with powers of Settlement Commissioner while companyceding that the aforesaid 13 standard acres and 3 1/2 units and 13 standard acres and 13 1/2 units in village Bahmniwala were allotted in favour of the respondent on June 17, 1957 and October 10, 1958 respectively and that there was numbercancellation order in respect thereof and that the companysolidation authorities should number have withdrawn the area from the name of the respondent who had through numberfault of his been put to a lot of difficulty and that it was just and proper that the matter of allotment to which he was entitled be settled once for all in such a way that whole of the area is given to him permanently in one village, rejected the appeal by his order dated April 18, 1962 observing that there was numbergood ground for interfering with the allotment of the appellants and that it would be open to the respondent to apply to the Naib Tehsildar cum Managing Officer to make up the shortfall in his area by allotment of some other land which may be available in that village.
Then came the two Notifications Nos.
1285 Additional rent may be fixed thereupon by the Custodian.
HS4/ 1957/11202 dated March 1, 1957 but also with the record pertaining to all the subsequent allotments made in his favour upto date or 1283 cause the appearance of a responsible officer with the aforesaid record.
Two questions arise for determination in this case 1 whether the respondent acquired any enforceable right as a result of the allotment made in his favour on March 1, 1957 and delivery in pursuance thereof to him of possession of the aforesaid khasra numbers on June 17, 1957 and 2 whether the parcels of land which already stood allotted in favour of the respondent vide allotment order dated March 1, 1957 companyld be allotted by the Naib Tehsildar cum Managing Officer, Fatehabad in favour of Madan Mohan Singh and others without numberice to the respondent and without affording him in opportunity of being heard.
Aggieved by these orders, the respondent moved the High Court of Punjab and Haryana by means of the aforesaid petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution.
Definition of allottee .
The rights and incidents enjoyed by the allottees under the quasi permanent scheme introduced by the aforesaid numberification of July 8, 1949 are catalouged at page 823 of the aforesaid judgment of this Court in Amar Singh v. Custodian, Evacuee Property, Punjab supra .
His enjoyment of the property is on the basis of paying land revenue thereupon and ceases for the time being.
To obviate delay in disposal of the case, we also directed the Chief Settlement Commissioner to have in readiness a factual statement showing the net area in terms of standard acres to which the respondent was entitled as a displaced person, the particulars of the field initially allotted in his favour including the survey numbers and the extent of the area thereof, particulars of the survey numbers of the fields taken out of the respondents allotment vide Naib Tehsildar cum Managing Officer, Tehsil Fatehabads order dated May 23, 1960 and particulars of all the subsequent allotments made upto date in the respondents favour in different villages of District Hissar including village Bahmniwala as also the extent of the allotted area which is at present held by him.
Without caring to look into the revenue record, the Consolidation Officer instead of showing the aforesaid allotted area in Bahmniwala in the name 1281 of the respondent included the same in the kurrah area of the Custodian.
By his order dated May 23, 1960, the Naib Tehsildar cum Managing Officer, Fatehabad, however, made the following allotments out of an area of 58 standard acres and 7 units situate in Bahmniwala which included the khasra numbers already allotted to the respondent but which according to the Fard Fazla statement of surplus area prepared by the companycerned Patwari appeared to be available for allotment In favour of Bagga Singh, S o Pokhar Singh 5 1/2 units Inder Singh, S o Mit Singh 7 Standard acres 1 1/2unit M. dan Mohan Singh, S o Puran Singh, Odin Singh and Harduman Singh, 20 Standerd acres 2 units Sons of Madan Mohan Singh, Predecessor in interest of the appellants Aggrieved by this order of the Naib Tehsildar cum Managing Officer which adversely affected the allotment already made in his favour, the respondent preferred an appeal to the Assistant Settlement Commissioner with powers of Settlement Commissioner , Punjab, Jullundur companytending that 13 standard acres and 3 1/2 units of land in Bahmniwala allotted to him in 1957 had been erroneously included in the kurrah of the Custodian at the time of the Consolidation operations and that the same had number been erroneously allotted without his knowledge to Bagga Singh, Inder Singh, Madan 1282 Mohan Singh and his sons.
L. Narula, District Attorney, Haryana, R. B. Datar and Girish Chandra for Respondent No.1.
SRO 129 dt.
1280 K. Mehta, P. N. Puri, K. R. Nagaraja and G. Lal for the Appellants.
Accordingly, the Chief Settlement Commissioner has caused the attendance of K. L. Narula, Deputy District Attorney, Rehabilitation Department, Haryana, Chandigarh who has also filed an affidavit relating to the points on which information was required by us.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
14 Rest of the Respondents Ex parte The Judgment of the Court was delivered by JASWANT SINGH, J. The litigation culminating in the present appeal by certificate under Article 133 1 b of the Constitution which is directed against the judgment and order dated September 25, 1967, of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in C.W.N. 1630 of 1962 setting aside the allotment dated May 23, 1960 made by Naib Tehsildar cum Managing Officer, Fatehabad, District Hissar in favour of Madan Mohan and others, and orders dated April 18, 1962 and July 21, 1962 of the Assistant Settlement Commissioner and Chief Settlement Commissioner respectively on the finding that numberpart of the holding which formed part of the land allotted to respondent No.
Dissatisfied with the order of the Assistant Settlement Commissioner, the respondent took the matter in revision to the Deputy Secretary Rehabilitation exercising the powers of the Chief Settlement Commissioner who also after paying lip sympathy dismissed the revision on the ground that it was time barred.
1411 min, 1412 min, 1472 min, 1241 min, 1242, 1243, 1244, 1245, 1246, 1247, 1621, 1622 to 1635 14 khasras , 1642, 1644, 1645 on June 17, 1957.
Against the aforesaid entitlement, the respondent was allotted 90 standard acres and 6 units of evacuee land between 1953 and 1958 in different villages of Tehsil Fatehabad, District Hissar including two areas measuring 1 13 standard acres and 3 1/2 units and 2 13 standard acres and 13 1/2 units in village Bahmniwala allotment of which was made on March 1, 1957 and October 10, 1958 respectively.
We have perused the entire material and have again heard companynsel for all the sides.
The Consolidation Officer by his order dated March 23, 1960 companysigned the objection petition of the respondent to the record room observing that in the absence of the relevant record which, as per the report of the Wasal Baqi Nawis is has been despatched to Jullundur for checking purposes, the factum of allotment cannot be verified and as it is necessary to take proceedings under section 21 2 of the Consolidation of Holdings Act in village Bahmniwala in this very month, the record cannot be awaied any further.
1630/62.
Pursuant to the above allotment of 13 standard acres and 3 1/2 units made in his favour in village Bahmniwala vide Sanad dated March 6, 1957 Annexure C to the writ petition , the respondent was given possession of the plots of land companyprised in khasra Nos.
It appears that the respondent who is a displaced person from Pakistan was found entitled to an allotment of 113 standard acres and 3 units of land in lieu of 120 acres of land held by him as owner in Bhawalpur Pakistan .
C. Agarwala for Respondent No.
2419 of 1968.
If and when he does so, the allottee is bound to pay the same.
14, Mehta Lal Chand, hereinafter referred to as the respondent companyld, during the subsistence of such allotment and without its cancellation, be allotted to any one else has had a very chequered career extending over well nigh two decades.
The respondent companytinued to remain in possession of the aforesaid plots of land till Rabi 1960 when companysolidation of holdings were undertaken in village Bahmniwala.
On companying to know about this irregularity, the respondent filed objections before the Consolidation Officer and requested him to rectify the mistake.
