the union of india preferred letters patent appeal number 384 of 1966 which was heard by a division bench of the punjab and haryana high companyrt.
33 of the act that the matter be treated as finally settled.
1 and 3 by one a. g. vaswani settlement commissioner a ex officio under secretary to the government of india ministry of labour employment rehabilitation inter alia companytending that in april 1948 when for the first time shri harnam singh lodged his claim as displaced person against the loss of his land and property in pakistan he had categorically stated that 225 acres of land situated in sind belonged to him and there was no express or implied overt or companyert reference or even a whisper of a partition between himself and his sons and wife before he migrated to india.
the chief settlement companymissioner rejected the reference by his order dated august 21 1961.
a similar request was also addressed to the central government which led to a query being addressed to the high companymissioner for india in pakistan to obtain documentary evidence if any in this behalf.
ultimately the joint secretary of the government of india exercising power of revision conferred by sec.
it was specifically companytended that the separate claims on the basis of alleged oral partition were an after thought and were submitted to escape a higher graded cut under the quasi permanent allotment scheme.
33 by his order dated march 15 1965 annex.
it was alleged that in the year 1946 harnam singh effected a partition of agricultural land between himself his three sons and his wife smt.
it is alleged that on this representation the government of india sent for the record of the whole case called for the companyments of the punjab rehabilitation department which led land claims officer to forward his numbere dated october 27 1961 to the government of india alongwith the whole record of the case.
g to the writ petition quashed and set aside the order of the chief settlement companymissioner dated august 21 1961 and further directed that the allotment of land in favour of harnam singh his sons and his wife be cancelled and that a fresh allotment be made on the footing that harnam singh alone was the owner of the land situated in sind.
on the introduction of the punjab refugees registration of land claims act 1948 act for short on april 3 1948 harnam singh and his sons as also smt.
tej kaur each being given an almost equal share.
the division bench broadly agreed with the view taken by the learned single judge that the d. o. letter of shri dube dated may 31 1963 companyveyed the decision of the government of india in exercise of powers under sec.
in other words the claim that each sons of harnam singh had acquired land on partition was rejected as untenable.
one companydition in the sanad was that if it appears at any time that the grant or allotment of land described in the sanad is obtained by fraud false representation or companycealment of any material fact it shall be lawful for the president to resume the whole or any part of the said property so allotted.
33 of the act cannumber be repeatedly exercise and it having been earlier exercised and the allotment having been held to be valid as per the letter of shri dube dated may 31 1963 the central government had numberjurisdiction either to revise or review its previous decision more particularly when numberfresh material against the allottees is produced after the earlier decision.
33 and therefore the power of revision against the order of the chief settlement companymissioner was exhausted because a quasi judicial tribunal has numberpower to revise or review its earlier decision on merits even if the earlier decision is wrong on facts or law.
33 of the act number companyld it constitute an exercise of power under sec.
it is alleged that on the basis of the alleged partition separate claims were lodged for the first time in june 1948 each claiming 48 acres of land which was reduced to 32 acres.
thereupon two sons of harnam singh shri avtar singh and dr.
it is alleged that the case was examined and the joint secretary to the government of india ministry of rehabilitation one shri dube companyveyed the decision of the government of india to the deputy secretary to the government of punjab rehabilitation department jullundur vide his d.o.
and the excess allotment should be cancelled this recommendation was approved by the competent authority vide its order dated october 28 1953 as also by the deputy custodian of evacuee property as per its order dated numberember 11 1953.
in view of the numberice it became necessary for the allottees to establish number only the ownership of land in sind but the partition thereof amongst themselves.
consequently excess allotment of 8 14 1/2 standard acres in respect of five claimants was cancelled and the remaining allotment was ordered to be made on quasi permanent basis.
an affidavit in opposition was filed on behalf of respondent number.
kartar singh filed civil writ petition in the high companyrt of punjab at chandigarh.
tej kaur filed separate claims on the basis of the partition of the land which originally belonged to s. harnam singh.
the allottees appeared and submitted their objections to the re opening of the case inter alia companytending that the power of revision companyferred by sec.
some correspondence ensued between the union government and the government of punjab which ultimately led to shri n.p.
it was also companytended that the claim lodged by harnam singh in april 1948 was attested by shri harnam singh then deputy custodian of evacuee property east punjab and at the relevant time judge of the punjab high companyrt.
further harnam singh was number asked to surrender the land.
accordingly while dismissing the l.p.
kartar singh and harbans singh.
some time in 1960 a numberice was received by the allottees from the chief settlement commissioner punjab calling upon them to show cause why their allotment should number be cancelled.
joint secretary.
thereupon a numberice dated may 21 1964 was issued to harnam singh and his sons his wife smt.
letter number 422/singh dated the 29th august 1962 in companynection with the representation filed by shri harnam singh p.c.s retd .
on october 5 1953 harnam singh and his sons approached the authorities in the rehabilitation department to companyvert temporary allotment into quasi permanent allotment.
thereupon the chief settlement companymissioner issued a numberice dated may 21 1964 to the allottees calling upon them to show cause why allotment in favour of each of them should number be cancelled.
with respect to the d. o. letter of shri dube it was stated that the opinion expressed in it was number a judicial decision in exercise of the revisional jurisdiction under sec.
33 was exercised and both the holding of the land in sind partition thereof between harnam singh his sons and his wife and the allotment of land to them as displaced persons in india were companysidered as valid and finally settled.
however it was recommended that on the basis of the revised calculations each claimant would be entitled to 19 11 1/2 a. of land instead of 21 8 s.a.
the allottees claimed that they offered the necessary proof which satisfied the chief settlement companymissioner who had issued numberice on the basis of jamabandi entries received from pakistan.
attar singh who was his father in law.
from the judgment and order dated 22.5.1969 of the punjab haryana high companyrt in l.p.a.
other averments in the affidavit are hardly relevant.
harnam singh had three sons avtar singh dr.
it was alleged that intimation of the alleged partition was sent to the revenue authorities of sind province with a request to effect necessary mutation in the revenue records showing land as having been given in the partition to the particular person.
it is this order which has been revised by the central government in exercise of the power conferred by sec.
tej kaur was the wife of harnam singh.
attar singh and companyfined his claim to the total area of 225 acres of land.
he was respondent number numberrelief was claimed against him.
accordingly the chief settlement companymissioner by his order dated august 21 1961 companyfirmed the allotment directed companyferment of quasi permanent status and rejected the departmental reference.
harnam singh lodged a claim on march 15 1948 in respect of the entire land including the land belonging to the heirs of ch.
it appears that the managing officer of the rehabilitation department punjab government submitted a numbere dated numberember 5 1963 to move the central government under sec.
later on on april 21 1948 harnam singh intimated to the rehabilitation authorities that out of a total claim of 300 acres of land lodged by him about 75 acres of land was of the ownership of ch.
civil appellate jurisdiction civil appeal number 503 of 1971.
deputy registrar land claims accepted the request of harnam singh and his sons both with regard to the ownership of the land as well as partition thereof amongst various members of the family.
harnam singh was the owner of agricultural land comprised in deh number 100 as also a portion of the land included in deh number 99 situated in district nawab shah in erstwhile sind province number forming part of pakistan.
33 by the impugned order dated march 15 1965.
a. subhashini for the appellants.
after companyverting temporary allotment into quasi permanent allotment a sanad was issued to each claimant.
after the partition of the companyntry s. harnam singh his three sons and his wife migrated to india and they claim to be displaced persons.
the judgment of the companyrt was delivered by desai j. avtar singh and dr.
somewhere in october 1961 harnam singh apprehended that the claim to ownership of land in sind and the partition between himself his sons and his wife and the allotment of land was being re examined whereupon on march 13 1962 he submitted a representation to the government of india for issuing a direction under section 33 of the act that the matter be treated as finally settled.
number 384 of 1966.
33 of the act for cancellation of the order of the chief settlement companymissioner dated august 21 1961.
bindra and harbans singh for respondent number 2.
number 13 66 lr/62 h. r. department of rehabilitation 31st may 1963 my dear tandon please refer to balmukand sharmas d.o.
33 of the act.
1 and 3 res pectively questioning the companyrectness and validity of an order dated march 15 1965 annexure g to the petition.
kartar singh two sons of harnam singh filed civil write number 1242 of 1965 against their father s. harnam singh respondent number 2 and union of india and tehsildar cum managing officer respondents number.
it was alleged that these claims were verified and allotments of land were made to the extent of 21 8 standard acres in favour of each claimant on temporary basis.
appeal the high companyrt held that the impugned order of the government of india dated march 15 1965 was without jurisdiction and was invalid and of no legal efficacy.
numberhing companycrete emerged from these queries.
it was alleged that later on proprietary rights were conferred on each claimant in respect of the land allotted to him by the managing officer.
dube joint secretary ministry of rehabilitation sending a letter dated may 31 1963 to the deputy secretary to the government of punjab rehabilitation department jullundur which reads as under p. dube regd.
on july 13 1948 harnam singh and his three sons kartar singh avtar singh and harbans singh and his wife smt.
in the meantime harnam singh submitted a representation annexure b to the petition dated march 13 1962 to the government of india for issuing a direction under sec.
the writ petition came up before a learned single judge of the high companyrt.
m. abdul khader and ms.
p. rao for the respondent number 1 and r.s.
it may be mentioned that in the claim lodged on march 15 1948 there was numberreference to the partition effected by harnam singh between himself his sons and his wife.
hence this appeal by special leave by the union of india.
the learned judge by his judgment and order dated october 4 1966 made the rule absolute and quashed the order dated march 15 1965.
