AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
PANKAJ JAIN, J. (ORAL)
[1] The present writ petition has been filed challenging the order dated 11.02.1992 passed by the Financial Commissioner, whereby the order dated 28.12.1987 passed by the Chief Settlement Officer, Punjab, Chandigarh was upheld.
[2] The petitioner-Chakar Singh was a migrant from West Punjab at the time of partition. In view of land left by him in Village Shaki Bachianwali Minchanabad (Bhawalpur State), he was allotted 4SA - 11½ S Units of land in Village Jalalabad, under the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954. Subsequently, the valuation of the land was revised. The authorities opined that the petitioner was allotted one standard acre and 2 standard units in excess of his entitlement. Consequently, an area measuring 22 kanals 11 marlas was retrieved from him. The petitioner further claims that 13 kanals of the land remaining with him was acquired by the State for a sem drain/nala, without payment of compensation.
[3] The petitioner impugned order of re-assessment before the Settlement Commissioner. The matter was remanded to the Managing Officer to decide afresh vide order dated 10.07.1980. Thereafter, vide order dated 04.12.1981, the Managing Officer found that the revaluation of the petitioner’s entitlement was wrong and that the petitioner was indeed entitled for 04 standard acres and 11 ½ standard units of land and he needed to be allotted the same. The said order, however, could not be implemented. In the meantime, the land retrieved from the petitioner was put to public auction. The said land came to respondent Nos.4 to 6. In the meantime, the land earlier allotted to the petitioner came within the municipal limits of Jalalabad on account of extension of the said limits. The Tehsildar (Sales), Ferozepur, vide order dated 21.05.1982 (Annexure P-1), held that the petitioner is not entitled for the land retrieved from him as the same had become urban and he is ineligible to get an alternate allotment. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner approached the Settlement Commissioner. The appeal was dismissed vide order dated 11.01.1983 (Annexure P-2). In further appeal before the Chief Settlement Commissioner, the matter was ordered to be remanded to the Tehsildar-cum-Sales, Fazilka, for a fresh decision, with the following observations::-
“3.I have given a careful consideration to the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties. The perusal of the record shows that in this case both the respondents-petitioners as well as the petitioner-respondents are tied up in the peculiar circumstances where it is difficult to decide as to who has an edge over the other. Both seem to have an equally strong case. In my opinion, in such a case, the balance of convenience would clearly lie in favour of the sitting occupants. The principle of equity demands that the petitioner-respondents, who are in peaceful possession after having acquired the land through legal auction, should not be dispossessed particularly when they have been in occupation thereof for the last so many years, and have made substantial investment in the land and improved it considerably-rather changed its character also. The natural justice however, demands that Shri Chakar Singh, respondent-petitioner, may be provided alternative land of equivalent value as it contained at the time of cancellation, if he is found entitled for restoration of any area to him, according to rules. The revision petition of Shri Chak ar Singh is partially accepted and the case is sent back to the Tehsildar (Mahal)-cum-(Sales), Fazilka, for fresh decision in the light of the observations made above.”
[4] Still aggrieved, the petitioner preferred revision petition, which stands dismissed by the Financial Commissioner, affirming the order passed by the Commissioner.
[5] From the record, it is discernible that the matter was heard by this Court on 07.07.2014. After hearing the parties, this Court passed a detailed order, which reads as under:-
“ The application for impleadment is unnecessary at the instance of third parties who claim to be purchasers from an allottee. In the manner of consideration of the petitioner's entitlement, it has to be only seen whether he has been made good for the deficit that has entailed when an extent of allotment of 1 standard acre was cancelled from his original allotment of 4 standard acre 11 ¾ units in the village at Jalalabad. There has been already a concession made by the petitioner before the Settlement Commissioner that he will not object to the allotments subsequently made and that the deficit will be made good from some other property. In view of the said statement, any subsequent allottee or an alienee will not in any way be required to be heard since their interest cannot be affected by any act of the State in making good the deficit that has resulted from the petitioner's entitlement. The application for impleadment is, therefore, unnecessary and dismissed as such.
The enumeration of facts brought out above would also reveal that none of the private respondents could be affected, for, their own allotment cannot a subject of reappraisal, more particularly in view of the concession made by the petitioner before the Settlement Commissioner.
The impugned order in so far as it finds that the deficit property could not be made good since the land had over a period of time become urban property is untenable. The State is bound to restore to him to what he is actually entitled to. He has claimed his entitlement to 3 ¾ standard acres and whatever falls deficit to his entitlement shall be granted to him in the very same village.
The State counsel is directed to take appropriate instructions and apprise the court of the availability of any other alternative land for the deficit that has resulted in his holding. The petitioner is also at liberty to seek for details from village authorities and furnish the same in the court to enable the court to pass an appropriate order, without letting the matter to go back to the authorities who may or may not pass any order and make way for prospect of further delay in the proceedings.
Adjourned to 30.07.2014.
Copy of the order be issued to the State on payment of dasti charges.”
[6] In the considered opinion of this Court, the Commissioner though rightly held that the petitioner-Chakar Singh be allotted alternate land but direction with respect to re-determination of the petitioner’s entitlement cannot be sustained in view of the fact that the entitlement of the petitioner already stands determined by the Authorities. The land could not be allotted only for the reason that the same had become urban after municipal limits were extended. The petitioner is thus entitled for:-
Allotment of alternate land measuring 22 kanals 11 marlas.
The petitioner’s entitlement with respect to 13 kanals 06 marlas of land, which, as per him, was acquired for a sem nala without paying any compensation, also needs to be determined by the authorities.
[7] Despite repeated orders passed by this Court, the State Authorities have failed to trace the relevant record, showing disbursal of compensation to the petitioner pursuant to the notification dated 01.03.19994 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.
[8] In view of the aforesaid, the present writ petition is disposed off with the following directions:-
The State Authorities shall allot an alternate land measuring 22 kanals 11 marlas to the petitioner within a period of 03 months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.
The claim of the petitioner with respect to an alternate piece of land viz-a-viz acquired land, i.e. 13 kanals 06 marlas, shall be determined on the basis of the record. In case, the compensation for the acquired land has already been paid to the petitioner, no further compensation shall be payable. However, in case the compensation was not paid at the time of acquisition, the same shall be paid as per circle rate applicable on the date of filing of the present writ petition alongwith statutory benefits and interest in terms of provisions of Land Acquisition Act, 1894.
[c] The amount of ₹36,000/-, already paid pursuant to the order of this Court, shall be adjusted against the amount so determined.
[9] All pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, stands disposed off.