AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Mahesh Grover, J.—In this petition the petitioner questions the orders Annexures P-3, P-5 and P-6 and prays that the same be quashed. The petition has been filed in the backdrop of a checkered history. Dalip Singh, the petitioner, was given the land on lease comprised in Khasra No. 834(9-12), 835(8-0), 836(11-1) and 837(0-7) measuring 29 kanals in Jalandhar in the year 1955. At that point of time, this was the only land with him. In the year 1956, the petitioner took another piece of land measuring 50 kanals on lease, but did not retain its possession and gave it over to Inder Singh and Baghicha Singh as sub-lessees. Some land comprised in Khasra No. 743 was sold in auction in favour of Daya Kaur mother of Roshan Lal Seth (respondent No. 4 herein) for Rs. 6000/-. This land was in possession of Dalip Singh as sub-lessee. He challenged this auction by way of C.W.P. No. 126 of 1961 which was dismissed as infructuous on 11.9.1961 when an undertaking was given on behalf of the Rehabilitation Department that the case of the present petitioner will be considered afresh.
The matter was then re-considered by the Managing Officer and vide order dated 20.1.1965, the petitioner''s claim for purchase of the land in question was rejected which led to the filing of an appeal before the Regional Settlement Commissioner, who vide his order dated 27.2.1965, remanded the matter pertaining to Khasra No. 743. On a consideration afresh, the claim of the petitioner was once again rejected on 24.3.1965. The petitioner in the meantime, had also filed a revision petition before the Chief Settlement Commissioner against the order of the Regional Settlement Commissioner dated 27.2.1965 which had the effect of reducing the value of some other land held by the petitioner. The matter was remanded back again to the competent authority with a direction that the land comprised in Khasra No. 743 be re-valued after hearing the petitioner and also assessing his eligibility for the purchase of the land.
Daya Kaur who had purchased the land comprised in Khasra No. 743, died and her son Roshan Lal Seth (respondent No. 4 herein) was impleaded as a party-respondent to the proceedings. The matter was then considered by the Managing Officer who vide his order dated 30.1.1970, held the petitioner eligible for transfer of the land comprised in Khasra No. 743 which led to the filing of an appeal by Roshan Lal Seth. The Settlement Commissioner accepted the appeal on 15.11.1971 and returned a finding that Dalip Singh was not a lessee on the land. The matter was once again remanded back for re-consideration. This order of the Settlement Commissioner was challenged before the Chief Settlement Commissioner who vide order dated 4.1.1974, set aside the said order. Roshan Lal Seth then filed a petition before the Financial Commissioner who vide his order dated 25.10.1973, directed that the land in dispute be disposed of by auction in accordance with law. Against this order, Roshan Lal Seth (respondent No. 4 herein) filed C.W.P. N. 237 of 1975, while Dalip Singh, the present petitioner filed C.W.P. No. 7398 of 1975. Both these petitions were decided vide order dated 13.1.1983. The petition filed by Dalip Singh was accepted and this Court observed as follows:-
In the result of the writ petition filed by Dalip Singh is hereby accepted and he is consequently held entitled to transfer of the land comprised in Khasra No. 743 to the extent of his eligibility according to the relevant rule.
The matter was then heard by one Shangara Singh, Tehsildar-cum-Managing Officer, Jalandhar who rejected the claim of petitioner Dalip Singh and observed as follows:-
The petitioner is not entitled to the transfer of any additional land unless he gets rid of order dated 4.5.1962 of the R.S.C. and requests for the re-process of his claim in denovo proceedings.
This officer further observed that but for the hot pursuit given by the respondent Roshan Lal Seth, the petitioner would have been successful in duping the government and putting the compensation pool to a tremendous loss. As the claim of the petitioner had already been satisfied to the extent of his eligibility with the order dated 17.7.1987, directions were issued to take steps to finalize the sale of land comprised in Khasra No. 743 in favour of Roshan Lal Seth under the rules. The Settlement Commissioner before whom the appeal was filed, accepted the plea of Dalip Singh vide order dated 14.11.1988 and remanded the case to the Managing Officer for deciding it afresh. Roshan Lal Seth filed a revision petition before the Deputy Commissioner-cum-Chief Settlement Commissioner Jalandhar who vide his detailed order, accepted the revision on 18.10.1991 and set aside the order of the Settlement Commissioner dated 24.11.1988 and restored the order of the Managing Officer dated 17.7.1987. Against this order, a petition was filed before the Financial Commissioner who vide the impugned order, rejected the revision filed by the petitioner which has led to the filing of the instant petition.
The Financial Commissioner observed that the true facts were not brought to the notice of this Court while deciding C.W.P. No. 237 of 1995 on 13.1.1983 and which resulted in the observation being made which though extracted above, is extracted once again:-
In the result of the writ petition filed by Dalip Singh is hereby accepted and he is consequently held entitled to transfer of the land comprised in Khasra No. 743 to the extent of his eligibility according to the relevant rule.
The Financial Commissioner observed that since the Managing Officer had been given the authority to determine eligibility of the petitioner, he conducted this exercise and found the petitioner ineligible for the transfer of any further land as his claim had been satisfied. It may not be out of place to mention here that the petitioner had filed Contempt Petition bearing No. 46 of 1998 alleging that the Tehsildar-cum-Managing Officer had tried to sit in judgment over the judgment of the High Court which had clearly held the petitioner Dalip Singh entitled to the land comprised in Khasra No. 743. The observations made by the Tehsildar-cum-Managing Officer which the petitioner found to be an affront to the orders of this Court, are extracted here below:-
Had the Hon''ble High Court been aware of the aforesaid facts they would not have given any relief to the petitioner who has not approached them with clean hands.
This Court dismissed the petition by observing that the Managing Officer had clearly given the mandate to assess the eligibility of the petitioner and in doing so, it concluded that no contempt was made out.
I have considered the matter at some length and find that the observations made by the Tehsildar-cum-Managing Officer in the first instance are outrightly correct. The petitioner had very cleverly not brought to the notice of this Court the document which has not been appended to the reply filed by the present respondent No. 4 as Annexure R-4/1. This is the statement made by the petitioner wherein he stated that he has already got 29 kanals of land from Lot No. 63 and that he was allowed to retain it and that he did not want an additional allotment under the new rules. For the purpose of reference, the entire statement of the petitioner is extracted here below:-
Statement of Shri Dalip Singh son of Inder Singh, resident of Basti Danishmandan, Jalandhar.
I am neither lessee nor sub-lessee (tenant) of Lot No. 36/1-2. I do not claim any land from this plot. Lot No. 63 already stands allotted to me. This is why I made an application for extension of lease upto 1958 only. Thereafter I did not make any application for further lease. Instead, I am paying Land Revenue to Tehsildar. Lot No. 79 is on lease with Jawand Singh and I am his sub-lessee (tenant) continuously from 1954. The land is still in my possession and I am prepared to pay its lease money. I am lessee of Lot No. 90. I have got its lease extended upto Kharif 1959. Thereafter I made application on 16.7.1960, 17.12.1960, 23.1.1961, 21.2.1961 in the office of D.R.O. (Distt. Rent & Managing Officer-DRMO) for the extension of lease, but my lease was not extended. I produce copies of the said applications. I am prepared to pay the balance lease money. I have already got 29 kanals of land from Lot No. 63 for Rs. 5800/-. I paid Rs. 1160/- as initial amount. Thereafter I tried to deposit the instalment but it was not accepted. I am prepared to keep 29 kanals of land for Rs. 5800/-. I may be allowed to retain it. I do not want additional allotment under new rules. 4.5.62. Again said if the first allotment cannot be restored then I may be allotted land under new rules.
Sd. D.R. & M.O.
4.5.62 R.O. & A.C. Sd. Dalip Singh (in Punjabi)
Previous transfer file be put up
Call upon Shri Dalip Singh to clear the arrears of lease money and 8 times the land revenue by 24.6.62.
Sd. 16.6.62
Shriman Ji
Shri Dalip Singh son of Inder Singh was allotted 29 kanals of land comprised in Kh. Nos. 834 min, 835, 836, 837 in Basti Danishmandan for Rs. 5800/-. As per entries in the Register, he deposited Rs. 1168/- being one fifth (1/5th) of the price. But thereafter due to writ in the High Court balance amount was not deposited.
As per statement dated 4.5.1962, in the file, made by Sh. Dalip Singh before the DR&MO the allottee wants his previous allotment to be restored.
Reserve price under Process Note Rs. 200/- per k1.
Average sale price in adjoining areas Rs. 200/- per k1.
The previous allotment may be regularized under the rules. File is submitted for perusal and proper orders.
Pokhar Dass Patwari
Sd. 22.8.63 May regularize M.O. (H)
Sd. 29.3.63
Sd. 5.4.63
RSC
Sd. R.S. PHOOLKA
R.S.C.J.
(Regional Settlement Commissioner, Jalandhar).
It is in this context that the Tehsildar-cum-managing Officer observed that the claim of the petitioner stood duly satisfied and he had thus no other claim on any other land under the Act or the rules.
Once the aforesaid fact is accepted, then it is evident that the petitioner had misled this Court. After the allotment of 29 kanals of land in favour of the petitioner was cancelled, he had approached this Court by way of C.W.P. No. 730 of 1959 which was dismissed on 13.8.1959 affirming the cancellation of allotment of land to the petitioner. It is then that the petitioner made a statement before the Regional Settlement Commissioner on 4.5.1952 praying that if the cancelled allotment is restored, he would not have any claim for additional allotment. On the strength of this statement, the Regional Settlement Commissioner had regularized the allotment vide his order dated 4.5.1962. All these facts were never brought to the notice of this Court in C.W.P. No. 7398 of 1975.
I am thus, of the opinion that the Managing Officer took the right view that the petitioner had concealed material facts from this Court which resulted in the matter being remanded for re-consideration, by holding the petitioner entitled to land subject to his eligibility, but finding that the petitioner had already availed himself of the land as per the provisions of the Act and his entitlement, rejected the claim of the petitioner which has now been upheld by virtue of the impugned order.
I thus, do not find any infirmity in the impugned orders as most of the litigation has resulted on account of suppression of facts by the petitioner in the earlier petition filed before this Court. The writ petition is therefore, dismissed.