ORDER Bhagat Singh, FC. - This petition under Section 33 of the Displaced Persons (C and R) Act, 1954, is directed against the order dated 12.10.2001 read with an ex parte order dated 13.3.1995 passed by the Deputy Commissioner-cum-Chief Settlement Commissioner, Kapurthala. 2. This case has got a chequered history and a series of orders have been passed in it. Allotment to the tune of 1 SA 9-3/4 units (20K-10M) was made to the petitioners on 17.10.1980 by Tehsildar-cum-M.O. Bholath in village Pandori, Tehsil Bholath, Distt. Kapurthala. The Gram Panchayat of village Pandori challenged the allotment upto the level of Honble High Court. Honble Mr. Justice M.M. Punchhi delivered the judgment in CWP No. 167 of 1982 of 13.12.1983 with the following observations :- "In this situation, when the dispute between the parties stands considerably narrowed down, it would be appropriate to dispose of this petition by issuing a direction to the Tehsildar (Sales)-cum-Managing Officer, Kapurthala, to hear the Panchayat while carving out the custodians share from the Khewat of "Mustarka Malkan Hasab Rasad Khewat", as also respondent No. 5 and then deliver to the later the area so carved out, in order to satisfy the claim to the extent of allotment, regarding which orders had been passed in his favour. At the same time, it is warned that there should be no delay in the process for it is a pity that Displaced Persons are still roaming about without being rehabilitated despite the passage of 36 years." 3. From the perusal of this operative part of the judgment, it becomes crystal clear that the land to which the allottee is entitled, shall have to be given to him. The Tehsildar, after working out the share of the Custodian, restored the allotment on 9.12.1987, but the possession of the area was not given to the petitioner. The Chief Settlement Commissioner, on an appeal of village Panchayat, set aside the allotment vide his order dated 31.8.1988. The Tehsilar again made the same allotment on 1.3.1989 which was set aside by Settlement Commissioner on 22.8.1989. Sh. Gurnam Singh Tehsilar, vide his order dated 2.9.1992, upheld the original allotment dated 9.12.1987 to Mohan Lal allottee. The Settlement Commissioner, Kapurthala, vide his order 9.9.1983 accepted the appeal of village panchayat and remanded the case to Tehsildar and Chief Settlement Commissioner vide his order dated 21.7.1994 rejected the revision petition of Mohal Lal. Sh. Gurnam Singh Tehsilar, vide his order dated 2.9.1992, upheld the original allotment dated 9.12.1987 to Mohan Lal allottee. The Settlement Commissioner, Kapurthala, vide his order 9.9.1983 accepted the appeal of village panchayat and remanded the case to Tehsildar and Chief Settlement Commissioner vide his order dated 21.7.1994 rejected the revision petition of Mohal Lal. In compliance with order dated 21.7.1994 Tehsildar (Sales)-cum-M.O. again processed the case and restored the allotment on 5.5.1997 as the area so allotted has already been carved out from the area of common Khewat as Custodians share. Since the possession of area was not being given, the petitioner approached the Commissioner, Jalandhar Division, Jalandhar on 10.10.2000 who called for a report from District authorities. The report revealed that the Chief Settlement Commissioner passed another order on 13.3.1995 by reviewing his own earlier order dated 21.7.1994 as under :- "I had passed an order in this case on 21.7.1994. I had observed that the case of allotment could be reopened only after the share of Custodian in the Gram Panchayat land was separated and partitioned. Thereafter I have come across new facts. There is an authoritative pronouncement from the Honble Supreme Court on the subject. The Honble Supreme Court in case "Gram Panchayat of village Jamalpur v. Malwinder Singh and others" reported in AIR 1985-SC-1394 has held that Shamlat land fully vests with the Gram Panchayat and the share of Custodian/Evacuee in the Shamlat land could not be separated and allotted to the allottees. It means that allotment of land measuring 20Ks. 10Ms. situated in village Pandori made by the Tehsildar on 17.11.1980 is invalid. The allotment is also cancelled in view of the Supreme Court ruling. The Gram Panchayat is directed to take possession of this land if it is in occupation of some persons on the basis of this allotment." 4. Accordingly, the petitioner was informed that no relief can be given to him in view of the order dated 13.3.1995 vide which the allotment was cancelled. Aggrieved by the ex parte order dated 13.3.1995 petitioner moved a petition before Deputy Commissioner-cum-CSC, Kapurthala for setting aside the ex parte order. The Chief Settlement Commissioner dismissed the same vide his order dated 12.10.2001 on the plea that there is no merit in the prayer for review of the order which was passed six years back. Aggrieved by the ex parte order dated 13.3.1995 petitioner moved a petition before Deputy Commissioner-cum-CSC, Kapurthala for setting aside the ex parte order. The Chief Settlement Commissioner dismissed the same vide his order dated 12.10.2001 on the plea that there is no merit in the prayer for review of the order which was passed six years back. Both the orders dated 13.3.1995 and 12.10.2001 have been assailed in this Court on the following grounds :- (i) Impugned order dated 13.3.1995 has been passed without affording any opportunity to the petitioner of being heard. In one order CSC directed the Tehsildar to reopen the case of allotment of land comprised in common khewat but on one fine morning, he passed another order dated 13.3.1995 by which he cancelled the allotment taking shelter of Honble Supreme Courts judgment reported in AIR 1985-page 1394. The CSC could not review his own order passed on merit except under Section 25(2) of the Act. Such order is not only bad in law but is incurably bad and is liable to be ignored and set aside in view of higher courts announcement as 1990-RRR-455. (ii) The judgment of Honble Supreme Court AIR 1985 page 1394 pertains to the area which totally belongs to Shamlat Deh land and not to the land which is comprised of common Khewat belonging to the evacuee and that of non-evacuee. The share of evacuee shall have to be separated and after that it is put in the Custodian Qurha. The land so allotted to the petitioner has been taken from Custodians share having been carved out from common khewat. Moreover, the fate of Gram Panchayat at has been sealed by the judgment dated 13.12.1983 of Honble High Court which has attained finality and has not been set aside by a higher court. (iii) As per amendment made in Section 2(g), 3(2) of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 all the allotment of land made before 9.7.1985 are saved and in this case allotment was made on 17.10.1980. 5. The counsel urged to accept the petition, set aside the impugned orders dated 12.10.2001 and 13.3.1995 and to give directions to Tehsildar Bholath to deliver possession of the allotted area to the petitioner. 6. The Law Officer on behalf of Deputy Commissioner-cum-CSC opposed the arguments and averred that he had passed the two separate orders. 5. The counsel urged to accept the petition, set aside the impugned orders dated 12.10.2001 and 13.3.1995 and to give directions to Tehsildar Bholath to deliver possession of the allotted area to the petitioner. 6. The Law Officer on behalf of Deputy Commissioner-cum-CSC opposed the arguments and averred that he had passed the two separate orders. In the order dated 21.7.1994, he observed that the "Tehsildar should reopen the case of allotment only after the partition of the lands comprised in the common khewat among the original land owners. He should also carefully work out the share of the Custodian. Then only he can entertain any requested for allotment." In his another order, dated 13.3.1995 he has observed that "There is an authoritative pronouncement from the Honble Supreme Court on the subject." The Honble Supreme Court in the case. "Gram Panchayat of village Jamalpur v. Malwinder Singh and others" reported in AIR 1985-SC-1394 has held that Shamlat land fully vests in the Gram Panchayat and the share of Custodian/evacuee in the Shamlat land could not be separated and allotted to the allottees. It means that allotment of land measuring 20K-10M situated in village Pandori made by Tehsildar on 17.11.1980 is invalid. The allotment is also cancelled in view of the Supreme Court ruling. The Gram Panchayat is directed to take possession of this land if it is in occupation of the same persons on the basis of this allotment." In view of these orders, and the judgment of Supreme Court, this petition is liable to be dismissed. 7. I have considered the argument advanced by the counsel and have also gone through the record. It appears that village Pandori was inhabited by Muslims who migrated to Pakistan in 1947. The evacuee land abandoned by them became available to the Custodian for allotment. In the year 1960, consolidation operation took place in the village and land was reserved for common purposes under Section 18 of the East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948. The land reserved for the income of Panchayat was earmarked as Mustarka Malkan Hasab Rasad Khewat. There was some unallotted evacuee area vesting in the Custodianwhich was allotted by the Tehsildar (Sales) on 17.11.1980 in favour of a lady named Jiwan Devi and the other in favour of Mohan Lal. Sh. The land reserved for the income of Panchayat was earmarked as Mustarka Malkan Hasab Rasad Khewat. There was some unallotted evacuee area vesting in the Custodianwhich was allotted by the Tehsildar (Sales) on 17.11.1980 in favour of a lady named Jiwan Devi and the other in favour of Mohan Lal. Sh. P.C. Ved, Settlement Commissioner, Punjab, Rehabilitation Department clearly mention in his order dated 13.1.81 that "since the available evacuee area in favour of Mohan Lal has been allotted in village Pandori, the appeal of Gram Panchayat to this extent is rejected. The revision petition was dismissed by the Chief Settlement Commissioner, Punjab, vide his order dated 27.7.81 observing that "allotment has been made to respondent only to the extent of Custodian share and therefore, there is nothing wrong in it." Despite the clear directions given by Honble High Court dated 13.12.83, a number of orders were passed by lower authorities including impugned orders which are totally against the directions. In this context the ruling AIR 1985-SC-1394 created a colossal problem of unsettling all such allottees and transferees etc. The State Govt. was seized of the matter and took the policy decision for saving all such allotments/transfers made upto July 9, 1985, the date of pronouncement of orders by Supreme Court. The Gram Panchayat has been claiming this area. 8. As per report of the Patwari dated 31.4.1997, Jamabandi for the year 1999- 2000 BK reveals that total area of the village is 18939 Kanals 15 Marlas. Hindu and Sikh occupants area. 530 Kanals 7 Marlas, Shamlat area 296 Kanals 7 Marlas; Shamlat Rajputan area 19 Kanals 6 Marlas and Muslim area 7921 Kanals15 Marlas. It means that 87% area belonging to Muslims related to Rehabilitation Department. The Tehsildar restored the area vide his order dated 5.5.1997 to the petitioner (Page 255 in Tehsildars file). 9. In the arguments of the Ld. Counsel regarding the applicability, amendment by notification dated 8.5.1995 made in Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961, Sections 2(g), 3(2) and (3) need consideration. The Tehsildar restored the area vide his order dated 5.5.1997 to the petitioner (Page 255 in Tehsildars file). 9. In the arguments of the Ld. Counsel regarding the applicability, amendment by notification dated 8.5.1995 made in Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961, Sections 2(g), 3(2) and (3) need consideration. By virtue of the amendment is Section 2(g), clause (ii-a) has been added and it has been provided that the property which "was shamlat deh, but, has been allotted on quasi-permanent basis to a displaced person, or, has been otherwise transferred to any person by sale or by any other manner, whatsoever, after the commencement of this Act, but on or before the 9th day of July, 1985", shall stand excluded. By virtue of Section 3(2), the land excluded from the definition of Shamlat deh ceases vest in Gram Panchayat and the rights, title or interest in such property vests in the persons in whom they were vested soon after the commencement of the shamlat law. Similarly, in land excluded under Section 2(g)(ii-a), right, title and interest of the Panchayat in such land shall cease and shall vest in the persons who have been allotted and to whom the land has been sold. It is thus clear from the amended provisions of the 1961 Act that Legislature has recognised the sales effected by the Rehabilitation Deptt. even in respect of shamlat land and by virtue of a deeming provision the defect, if any, in the action of the Rehabilitation Deptt. to transfer the property by way of sale etc. have been removed. On that account also the transfer of land made in favour of Mohan Lal-petitioner way back in the year 1980 will be deemed to have been legally effected. 10. In view of above observations, I accept the petition, set aside the impugned orders dated 13.3.1995 and 12.10.2001 of the Deputy Commissioner-cum-Chief Settlement Commissioner, Kapurthala and remand the case to the Tehsildar (Sales)-cum-M.O. Bholath to deliver the possession of the allotted area to the petitioner. Announced. Petition allowed.