Veer Kaur vs The State of Haryana

Jawahar Lal Gupta, J.—The petitioner impugns the order passed by the Chief Settlement Commission. Haryana, A copy of this order has been annexed as Annexure P-3 with the writ petition. By this order, the allotment of 12.8. standard acres of land made in favour of Lakshmi widow of Lal Chand, was cancelled on the ground that, in view of the decision of their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Gram Panchayat, Jamalpur v. Malvinder Singh 1985 P.L.J. 463 the Panchayat land could not have been allotted by the authorities under the provisions of the Administration of Evacuees Property Act, 1950. Directions for allotment of alternative land were given after ascertaining the particulars of the local representatives of the allottee.

The petitioner impugns this order on the ground that the decision in Malvinder Singh''s case (supra) could not be applied retrospectively. It is also submitted that the principles of natural justice had not been followed as the land having been sold to respondent No. 6 by the allottee or successor-in-interest, no order of cancellation could be passed and that the direction given regarding the allotment of alternative land was wholly vague as no time limit had been stipulated.

The respondents have controverted the claim made by the petitioner. In the written statement filed on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 to 4, it has been inter alia pointed out that the petitioner had effective alternative remedy under the Act and that the impugned order is in complete conformity with the decision of the Supreme Court in Malvinder Singh''s case (supra). It was been further mentioned that the land allotted to Lakshmi in fact formed part of the Shamilat land and vested in the Gram Panchayat. The order of allotment was void ab initio and consequently the petitioner can make no grievance of the fact that the Chief Settlement Commissioner has cancelled the allotment. Various grounds taken by the petitioner have also been controverted.

Separate written statement has been filed on behalf of respondent No.5, viz., Gram Panchayat and a preliminary objection has been raised. It has been pointed out that the petitioner has made false statement. According to the respondents, the impugned order had been passed after hearing the petitioner. However, in para 12 (iii) and (iv), it has been wrongly stated that the order was passed without the grant of any opportunity. On merits, the pleas raised by the respondent-Panchayat are broadly the same as those raised on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 to 4.

Counsel for the parties have been heard.

Mr. L.N. Verma, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the land was allotted in the year 1982. The action of the authorities in allotting the land was in conformity with the law as it then prevailed. A subsequent pronouncement by their Lordships of the Supreme Court could not invalidate the allotment already made. Further-more, the learned counsel has submitted that the petitioner should be allowed to continue to occupy the land till such time as alternative land is allotted to her. Mr. R.S. Mittal, learned counsel for the respondent-Panchayat has controverted the plea raised on behalf of the petitioner. He has submitted that the land vested in the Panchayat at the time of its allotment and it continues to so vest. The decision in Malvinder Singh''s case (supra) only reiterates the existing position of law. It is binding on all the authorities in the country. In accordance with this decision, the order of allotment was void ab initio and the petitioner can derive no advantage therefrom. It has been further submitted that the land actually belongs to Panchayat. The petitioner has no right to occupy that land. Learned counsel has also urged that the petitioner has made deliberately false statement in the writ petition. According to Mr. Mittal, the actual name of the petitioner is Bir Kaur. She had put in appearance before the Chief Settlement Commissioner through her attorney Hari Singh. However, in the petition she has deliberately described her name Veer Kaur and wrongly stated that the impugned order was passed without giving her any opportunity and that the action was violative of the principles of natural justice. Mr. Mittal submits that on the ground of misstatement of facts, petition deserves to be dismissed.

It is the admitted position that the land allotted to the petitioner or her predecessor-in-interest forms part of the shamlat of village Kharian, Tehsil Dabwali. It is also not disputed that in view of the provisions of the Punjab Village Common Land (Regulations) Act, 1961, this land vested in the Gram Panchayat. This position of law was clarified by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Malvinder Singh''s case (supra). That being so, the authorities under the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954, had no jurisdiction to pass any order of allotment. Consequently, their action in allotting 12.8 standard acres of land in favour of the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioner was wholly illegal. The order of allotment in respect of this land was void ab initio. That being so, no infirmity can be found with the impugned order by which the Chief Settlement Commissioner had ordered the cancellation of the allotment and the order regarding the vesting of proprietary rights.

This, however, is not the end of the case. It is not disputed that Lal Chand, husband of Lakshmi, owned land in Pakistan. On migration to India, his claim was verified. It was in lieu of that claim that the land had been allotted to Lakshmi. Even if the land which had been initially allotted to Lakshmi belonged to the Panchayat, alternative land has to be allotted to her. It is true that directions to that effect have been given in the impugned order. It is also true that these directions could not be carried out in view of the stay order granted in favour of the petitioner. However, since the matter is now being decided, it would be in the interest of justice that the alternative land is allotted in accordance with the directions given in the impugned order without any loss of time. In the circumstances of the case, it appears to be just and reasonable to direct that the order of allotment, regarding alternative land shall be made by the competent authority prescribed under the Act within three months from the date of receipt of the copy of this order. The possession of the land so allotted shall be delivered to the person found entitled within one month thereafter.

Mr. L.N. Verma, Advocate, submits that the petitioner should be allowed to continue to remain on the land already allotted till them. I find no ground to sustain this claim. The petitioner has remained in possession of the land belonging to the Panchayat without any justifiable reason for the last so many years. The petitioner must vacate the possession and hand over the land to the respondents. In case the petitioner does not hand over the possession within one month from today, the aforesaid direction with regard to the allotment of alternative land within three months as aforesaid shall not be binding. The direction given with regard to the allotment of land to the petitioner within the prescribed time shall be carried out by respondent Nos. 1 to 4 only if the petitioner files a written undertaking before this Court within two weeks from today and actually hands over the vacant possession to the panchayat within two weeks thereafter. Subject to the above, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs.