Satnam Singh and Others vs The State of Punjab and Others

K. Kannan, J.—The writ petitioners challenge the order rejecting their plea for transfer of land under the Punjab Package Deal Properties (Disposal) Rules, 1976. The claim had been made on the basis that the petitioners had been in possession of the property since 1965-66 and the khasra girdawaries also had been entered in the petitioners'' names. The contention was that they were heirs of the allottees under the Principal Act and they were entitled to be issued with the order of assignment. The plea was rejected by the Tehsildar (Revenue) on a reasoning that as per the Government instructions, the legal heirs were not entitled to purchase the land on the basis of their possession. In appeal to the PCS Sales Commissioner, the Sales Commissioner also held that the heirs of allottees were not entitled to the transfer of the land.

In a still further revision to the Chief Sales Commissioner, he reversed the reasoning that heirs of allottees themselves cannot be the beneficiaries of fresh allotments and he observed that the entitlement are normally survived to the heirs as well but however, he still affirmed the orders by the Authorities below on the ground that they were debarred from obtaining the transfer on the basis of possession under Rule 3(2)(ii). Since the claim to the property by a transfer under the Rules are rejected with particular reference to specific Rule, it would become necessary to consider the actual text of the Rule and the effect of the same.

3(2)- Persons not entitled to make applications for the transfer of the land-An occupant shall not be entitled to apply if:-

(i) he is minor, provided he is not a legal heir of an occupant who has died after making an application by the prescribed date;

(ii) he is an allottee or vendee of land, the allotment or transfer whereof has been cancelled on the grounds of fraud, misrepresentation of facts or otherwise;

(iii) she is a woman, whose husband is alive but is not disable or incapacitated;

(iv) he has already purchased surplus rural evacuee agricultural land on the basis of possession or in restriction auction and has disposed of the same, or has ceased to be entitled to hold the land by reasons of default in the terms and conditions of the transfer of sale.

The sub clause (ii) refers to disentitlement in a situation where the allotment or transfer had been cancelled on the grounds of fraud, misrepresentation of facts or otherwise and a fresh application for issue of allotment would be barred. The petitioner''s contention is that at no point of time was it ever brought on record that the predecessor had obtained an allotment but it was cancelled on the ground of fraud or misrepresentation of facts.

At a previous hearing on 05.07.2013, I directed the petitioner to show whether there was any proof of cancellation of an earlier allotment. There is no document that is brought on record but I find that the inability of the petitioners for production of the same cannot still disentitle the petitioners to lay the claim unless the claim to allotment is denied on any one of the grounds with a reference to the particular rule extracted above. It shall be for the State to show that such entitlement is denied for appropriate reasons. If there had been a cancellation of allotment made to the predecessor of the petitioners on the ground that there was fraud or misrepresentation, that itself should have been stated specifically as a ground in the order of the Chief Sales Commissioner. It is worthwhile to note that the authorities below had not made any other observations and they had merely rejected the petitioners'' plea on the only ground that the allotment cannot survive to the heirs. The whole text of Rule 3(2) has been reproduced. It can be noticed that it contemplates four situations for disentitlement. One, if he was a land owner and he is not legal heir to an occupant who died after making applications. Two is the ground which had been already used against the petitioners. The third situation is when the applicant is a woman and whose husband is alive but not disabled or incapacitated. Four when he purchased the surplus rural evacuee agricultural land on the basis of possession. None of the other grounds also could be applied to the petitioners. The rejection of claim for allotment when the petitioners were making a basis of previous possession cannot be said to be justified. The impugned orders are quashed and there shall be a direction against the respondent to issue transfer in accordance with law in favour of the petitioners.