Dass Ram vs Financial Commissioner and Others

Ranjit Singh, J.—This order will dispose of Civil Writ Petition Nos. 4774 of 2009 Dass Ram @ Gurdas Ram v. Financial Commissioner (Cooperation), Government of Punjab and Anr. and 4775 of 2009 Dass Ram @ Gurdas Ram v. Financial Commissioner (Cooperation), Government of Punjab and Ors.

On 28.4.1997, petitioner was allotted an evacuee land measuring 40 kanals 13 marlas at Village Mirzapur. On 27.2.2003, another 6 kanals land was allotted to the petitioner on the basis of his possession. The petitioner paid the entire amount and the sale certificate in his favour was issued. This allotment, done under the Punjab Package Deal Properties (Disposal) Act, 1976 has now been cancelled, which is impugned by the petitioner through the writ petitions.

The cancellation has followed on the basis of a complaint filed by respondent No. 2. In the complaint, it is mentioned that the petitioner got this allotment by concealing facts about previous allotment made to him in Village Ibrahimpur. This land allotted to the petitioner in Village Ibrahimpur had been sold within 20 years to non-scheduled castes in violation of the condition of allotment. Not only that, the petitioner, while seeking the allotment which has now been cancelled, had withheld an information regarding rejection of his application for allotment of this land made prior to filing of the application, leading to the present allotment. Chief Sales Commissioner, Nawashahar, has, thus, cancelled both the allotments made in favour of the petitioner on 30.6.2005. Aggrieved against this, the petitioner filed a revision before Commissioner, Jalandhar, followed by filing of revision petition before Financial Commissioner, which was dismissed on 21.5.2007. It may need a mention that the petitioner had impugned this order by way of Civil Writ Petition No. 10094 of 2008, which was got dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to file a fresh petition after disclosing better particulars. That is how this writ petition is filed to impugn the order of cancellation.

Learned Counsel for the petitioner would mainly contend that the cancellation was done on erroneous basis as the embargo for sale on the land allotted could not have been taken into consideration in this case as this bar came into force vide notification dated 3.9.1991 published in the Gazette on 13.9.1991, whereas the earlier allotment was in the year 1977-78. The counsel also submits that respondent No. 2 has no locus to challenge the allotment made in favour of the petitioner and hence, sought quashing of the impugned order directing cancellation of the land allotted to the petitioner.

During the course of arguments, the counsel could not dispute this fact that the petitioner earlier was allotted land in Village Ibrahimpur. It is also on record that the present allotment in village Mirzapur is made in favour of the petitioner despite the fact that his previous application for allotment of this land vide letter No. 270 dated 1.6.1988 was declined on the ground that the petitioner was allotted land previously in village Ibrahimpur. By concealing this fact, the petitioner made another application, leading to the present allotments, which has now been cancelled. Chief Sales Commissioner, in this background, has observed that he would have power u/s 10 of the Punjab Package Deal Properties (Disposal) Act to cancel such allotment if there had been a false representation or concealment of any material fact.

The Chief Sales Commissioner had also relied upon the instructions/guidelines issued by the Government in regard to disposal of inferior evacuee land. As per these instructions, an occupant who had already purchased inferior evacuee land on the basis of possession or in a restricted auction and has disposed the same, shall not be entitled to transfer of inferior evacuee land in his possession. The submission made by counsel for the petitioner that he belonged to Village Mirzapur where he had shifted can also not be easily accepted. Concededly, the petitioner was allotted land in Village Ibrahimpur on the basis of his possession. That could have happened only in case the petitioner was resident of Village Ibrahimpur where he had occupied land, which was allotted to him. His plea that he belongs to village Mirzapur would be in itself a contradiction apparent on the record. His further plea that he has shifted to Mirzapur is only to justify this allotment. He has sought to rely on a certificate issued by the Sarpanch that he belonged to village Mirzapur which is undated. There is no ground to justify this allotment to the petitioner. He has clearly misled the authorities while seeking allotment. Petitioner was not entitled to have this allotment and the same has been rightly cancelled.

Both the writ petitions are, therefore, dismissed.