ORDER Shyama Mann, FC. - This revision petition dated 29.8.1999 has been filed by Smt. Bachni and her husband Zail Singh under section 10(4) of the Package Deal Properties (Disposal) Act, 1976 against the order dated 30.11.1994 of the Commissioner, Jalandhar Division concerning the order dated 14.5.1990 of the Commissioner, Jalandhar Division and the courts below in respect of the land measuring 11 kanals 8 marlas bearing Khasra No. 24/24-25 situated in the revenue estate of Dauwal, Tehsil and District Gurdaspur. 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that Smt. Charanjit Kaur W/o Joginder Singh was alloted 80 kanals of land in village Dauwal in 1980. Her husband Joginder Singh who was serving in the 14th Regiment of Battalion of Indian Forces was killed in action in Indo-Pak war on 20.11.1971 in Bangla Sector. Out of the land allotted to Charanjit Kaur an area measuring 10 kanals 8 marlas was in cultivating possession of Zail Singh. Zail Singh staked his claim for that area. His application was declined by the Tehsildar Sales, Gurdaspur vide order dated 17.4.1981. An appeal against the said order was dismissed by the Sales Commissioner, Punjab, Rehabilitation Department, Mohali vide his order dated 5.4.1983 on the ground that Zail Singh had not made any application for the transfer of land on the basis of continuous cultivating possession under the Press Note. In the averments made on behalf of Charanjit Kaur was that appellant Zail Singh had already got the land transferred on the basis of possession according to his entitlement and he had not filed any appeal against that allotment alleging less allocation. Revision petition against this order dated 5.4.1983 was filed under section 10 of the Punjab Package Deal Properties (Disposal) Act, 1976 before the Deputy Secretary Rehabilitation-cum-Chief Settlement Commissioner, S.A.S. Nagar, Mohali who remanded the case vide his order dated 6.2.1984 (endorsed on 7.3.1984 to Tehsildar (Mahal), Gurdaspur with the direction that he should probe the matter afresh and if any application for transfer of land in dispute was found to have been filed by the petitioner under the Press Note on the prescribed proforma and he was found to be eligible for transfer of land to the petitioner and in that event respondent Charanjit Kaur would be provided alternative area and further that if there was no application the allotment shall remain intact. Pursuantly the Tehsildar (Mahal)-cum-Managing Officer, Mohali gave opportunity to Zail Singh to establish his claim. He found that Zail Singh had not made any application for transfer of land on the basis of possession from Rabi 1976 to Rabi 1978. Accordingly he rejected his claim vide order dated 30.4.1984. This order was challenged in appeal before the Collector Gurdaspur who remanded the matter to lower Court vide order dated 18.4.1985, with the direction to decide the case afresh after recording the statement of Zail Singh. Tehsil Gurdaspur then recorded the statement of Zail Singh. He again passed an order dated 25.6.1985 rejecting the claim of Zail Singh and if there was no application from the petitioner the allotment would remain intact. Thereafter, the matter was dealt with by the Chief Sales Commissioner, Gurdaspur in a Misc. Petition filed by Bachni wife of Zail Singh who vide his order dated 5.6.1989 rejected her claim. Thereafter, the matter came up before the Commissioner, Jalandhar Division in Misc. Petition filed against the order 5.6.1989 of the Chief Sales Commissioner. He found that the counsel for Bachni had not been able to prove if any application for transfer of land on the basis of possession was pending at the time of disposal of land in favour of war widow, Charanjit Kaur. Accordingly the petition was dismissed vide order dated 14.5.1990 by the Commissioner, Jalandhar Division. 3. Another application was filed by Smt. Bachni and her husband Zail Singh before the Commissioner, Jalandhar Division, Jalandhar for review of the order dated 14.5.1990. He dismissed the review application vide order dated 30.11.1994. However, he further observed that if the war widow has sold the land in violation of the rule, Tehsildar Sales, Gurdaspur would move a suo- motu reference to the Sales Commissioner. The said order dated 30.11.1994 has been challenged in the present revision petition alongwith the order dated 14.5.1990 of the Commissioner, Jalandhar Division. 4. I have carefully examined the record and heard the arguments of Ld. Counsel for the parties. In my opinion there is no merit in this revision petition and the same is liable to be dismissed. The record shows that the claim of Zail Singh, which was later on pursued by his wife Bachni, was without any foundation from its very inception and she had only been abusing the process of different courts. Counsel for the parties. In my opinion there is no merit in this revision petition and the same is liable to be dismissed. The record shows that the claim of Zail Singh, which was later on pursued by his wife Bachni, was without any foundation from its very inception and she had only been abusing the process of different courts. Zail Singh and his wife Bachni had persistently alleged that Zail Singh was in cultivating possession of land measuring 10K-4M bearing khasra Nos. 24/24/2(2-2), 25(6-0) and 25min (2-2) situated in village Dauwal which formed part of the 10 acres of land which had been allotted to Charanjit Kaur as war widow. The concerned authority in force repeatedly found that Zail Singh did not make any application for transfer of this land in pursuance of the relevant Press Note issued by the Punjab Govt., prior to its allotment to Charanjit Kaur. Even so, both Zail Singh and his wife Bachni tenaciously clung to her claim. The courts below have concurrently returned the findings that there is no merit in their claim. It is noticed that the impugned order dated 30.11.94 was passed by the Commissioner, Jalandhar Division in a petition filed by Smt. Bachni and Zail Singh under section 11 of the Punjab Package Deal Properties (Disposal) Act, 1976 for reviewing the order dated 14.5.1990 whereby the Misc. Petition against the order dated 5.6.1989 of the Chief Sales Commissioner, Gurdaspur was dismissed on the twin grounds that the land in dispute had since been disposed of by allotment to Charanjit Kaur the war widow, and counsel for Bachni who had made a Misc. application had not been able to prove specifically that any application for transfer of land on the basis of possession was pending at the time of disposal of land in favour of war widow. The record shows that the claim of Zail Singh and his wife Bachni was bereft of any legal backing, and they continued to make a spate of revision petitions, Misc. applications and complaints without any justification. They wasted the valuable time of functionaries of the Rehabilitation Department and the courts who were called upon to deal with the numerous petitions filed by them again and again. applications and complaints without any justification. They wasted the valuable time of functionaries of the Rehabilitation Department and the courts who were called upon to deal with the numerous petitions filed by them again and again. In the report dated 1.4.1982 of the Sub Divisional Officer, Gurdaspur, submitted to Deputy Commissioner Gurdaspur it was specifically mentioned that 5 acres of land had already been allotted to Smt. Bachni in the village but she was not willing to shift to that village due to the reasons best known to her. The complaint made by her against Charanjit Kaur was filed under the orders of Deputy Commissioner dated 5.4.1982. In another order dated 21.1.1986 of Tehsildar Gurdaspur it was observed that according to the copies of Khasra Girdawari, the possession of Zail Singh was not established from Rabi 1982 and more over according to the file No. 292- R/G/2 dated 21.10.1966 the applicant had already obtained land measuring 5 acres and was thus not entitled to any further transfer of land. This application was accordingly rejected. Vide another order dated 25.6.1985 to Tehsildar Gurdaspur the application of Zail Singh was dismissed after recording his statement by making reference to an other order dated 30.4.1984 wherein it was stated that Zail Singh could not produce any solid proof in support of his claim. 5. Zail Singh and his wife Bachni have abused the process of different courts with impunity by filing petitions, review and revision application as and when convenient. It is to be noticed that originally the Commissioner, Jalandhar Division dismissed the claim of Bachni on 14.5.90 but Bachni and Zail Singh filed a Review Application on 18.10.1993, i.e., after a period of more than 3-1/2 years without satisfactorily explaining the reasons for delay. This application was also dismissed. Against the order dated 30.11.1994 Bachni filed the present petition before this court on 29.8.99. She presented implausible reasons for the heavy delay of five years viz her being illiterate, having remained ill, inability to obtain a copy in time, and lack of means for filing the application. She presented no evidence to support these contentions. In reply to questions posed by the undersigned it transpired that she has presently two grown up sons one of whom is abroad and other is employed as a constable with the Police. She presented no evidence to support these contentions. In reply to questions posed by the undersigned it transpired that she has presently two grown up sons one of whom is abroad and other is employed as a constable with the Police. There is absolutely no occasion to interfere in the impugned order dated 30.11.1994 in as far as the dismissal of revision petition of Bachni is concerned. Therefore, the revision petition is dismissed. 6. At the same time it may be pertinently observed that Ld. Commissioner, Jalandhar Division lost the track of the case and made a digression for directing an inquiry into the complaint of resale of land by Charanjit Kaur who had been allotted the land as War widow way back in 1981. In my opinion such like inquiry was never the subject matter of the proceedings which emanated only from the frivolous claim of Zail Singh and Bachni which had to legal basis. Therefore, I am of the opinion that the Ld. Commissioner Jalandhar had committed grave error in directing such an inquiry. Such an inquiry will have the effect of unsettling the settled claim of Charanjit Kaur who was allotted land almost 20 years back. Therefore, the order of Ld. Commissioner, Jalandhar Division in that regard is hereby set aside. Announced. Order accordingly.