Smt. Pano and Others vs The Union of India and Others

D.K. Mahajan, J.—This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is directed against the order of the Chief Settlement Commissioner, dated 4th October 1961. By this order he accepted the revision petition filed by the respondent and remanded the case to the Managing Officer with the direction that he should allot the entire land which was at one time held by Mst. Premi in West Punjab before partition to Santa Singh.

In order to appreciate the entire controversy it will be proper to mention certain broad facts. The land in dispute was at one time held by Mst. Premi''s husband as occupancy tenant. On his death, she succeeded as his widow. On 19th October, 1929, Premi acquired landlord''s rights with the result that she became full owner of the land. In the year 1930 she gifted half of this land to her husband''s brother''s son Santa Singh. On 12th December, 1945, the remaining half was again gifted by her to Santa Singh. There is a disputed question that has been raised here. According to the petitioners, another son of her husband''s brother Santa Singh brought a suit for the usual declaration that the gift by Premi of the other half of the land would be inoperative against his reversionary rights and in that suit, it is alleged, he obtained a decree. Learned counsel for respondent No. 3 contends that there was no such suit and that there was no such decree and that the copy of the decree produced is a forgery. However, it is not necessary to determine this matter because it has least bearing on the question that is to be determined in these proceedings on account of certain events that have happened subsequently.

On partition of the country, Santa Singh and Premi came to India leaving the land in West Punjab. Rehabilitation authorities allotted, in the first instance, the whole of the land at one time held by Smt. Premi to Santa Singh, but later on, the allotment order was modified on an application trade to the authorities by Sarup Singh, and allotment of half of the land was to Santa Singh, was maintained and the other half was allotted to Premi. It may be mentioned that this order modifying the allotment was passed on 1st January, 1953. Premi had in the meantime died on 15th August, 1948. On 29th August, 1953, a suit was filed by the daughters of Mst. Premi claiming the land that had been allotted to Mst. Premi. To this suit besides the Rehabilitation Authorities Sarup Singh and Santa Singh were also parties. In paragraph 3 of the plaint it was stated by the daughters that their mother after having acquired the proprietary rights gifted one-half of her land to Santa Singh who became its owner and the other half remained the property of Premi their mother, and on her death the plaintiffs had become the owners thereof. In the written statement filed by Santa Singh in reply to paragraph 3 it was stated that "paragraph 3 of the plaint is correct to the extent that Mst. Premi was owner of one-half share. The answering defendant is the owner of the remaining half share." In paragraph 5 of the written statement it was stated that, "on the death of Premi he was a better heir to the land allotted to Premi than the daughters." It is significant that Santa Singh did not set up the second gift in his favour of the year I 45 in his favour by Premi. If that gift had been set up, the plaintiffs'' suit would have failed if Santa Singh had proved the factum and validity of that gift. The trial Court decreed this suit and granted the plaintiff-daughters a decree for possession. Santa Singh never challenged this decision by way of appeal. Sarup Singh did, and the learned District Judge dismissed his appeal. The judgments of the trial Court and of the District Judge are annexures ''E'' and ''F'' to the petition. It appears that Santa Singh was still contesting the question of allotment before the department and ultimately he got the impugned order in his favour.

The petitioners'' challenge that order on the short ground that it was passed without taking into consideration the judgments of the Civil Courts, annexures ''E'' and ''F''. This is correct. In view of the judgments of the Civil Courts, the impugned order has no leg to stand upon. It is settled by a long course of authority in this Court that the "Rehabilitation authorities are competent to allot land on the basis of Jamabandi entries received from Pakistan but when a dispute with regard to title arises in a particular case and the same is decided by civil Courts, then the Rehabilitation authorities are bound to give effect to the decree of the Civil Courts". Reference in this connection may be made to Vir Singh v. Chief Settlement Commissioner (1963) 65 P.L.R. 712. To the same effect are a number of decisions quoted in my decision of 19th May, 1960, in Nar Singh Gir v. District Judge, Ambala C.W. No. 1006 of 1959. There are also many unreported decisions on the same question. Not a single decision to the contrary has been brought to my notice. Therefore, the Chief Settlement Commissioner could not ignore these decisions. He was bound to give effect to the same.

Mr. D.D. Khanna, learned counsel for Santa Singh respondent No. 3, however, contended that the daughters never questioned the gift in Santa Singh''s favour and are bound by the same. They brought the suit on the basis of the modified allottment order, in favour of their mother. However, this consideration cannot in any way nullify the effect of the Civil Courts decisions annexures ''E'' and ''F''. There is no tacit acceptance of the gift by the daughters and in any case it was open to Santa Singh to defeat the daughters'' suit on that basis. So far as the daughters and Santa Singh are concerned, the decisions, annexures ''E'' and ''F'' will operate as res judicata in all future litigation. Therefore, the contention of learned counsel for Santa Singh have no merits and must be repelled.

For the reasons given above, this petition is allowed. The order of the Chief Settlement Commissioner is quashed and that of the Assistant Settlement Commissioner is restored. However, in the circumstances of this case, I will make no order as to costs.