Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 1335 (PNJ)

Pritam Kaur v. Tehsildar Sales Abohar

2005-12-29

RUPAN DEOL BAJAJ

body2005
ORDER Rupan Deol Bajaj, FC. - An application has been moved by Shri Harbir Singh Aulakh, POA holder of Smt. Pritam Kaur, on 17.1.2005, wherein he has stated that Smt. Pritam Kaur, his mother, was allotted land in excess of her entitlement and subsequently the excess land in the hands of Pritam Kaur was allotted to N.C. Sippy and K.R. Sippy, who further sold it to Shri Harjit Singh, IAS, then posted as SDM Abohar and others. It has been further stated that Smt. Pritam Kaur challenged the allotment to Sippy brothers and ultimately the Honble Supreme Court of India cancelled the allotment in the name of Sippy brothers and ownership of the subsequent purchasers. The Honble Supreme Court also directed that under Rule 62 of the Displaced Persons Compensation & Rehabilitation) Rules, 1955 the first right to purchase the land vests in Pritam Kaur. The applicant further pleaded that although Honble Supreme Court passed the order in 1996, the authorities below i.e. Managing Officer, Sales Commissioner and Chief Sales Commissioner have not given any relief to Pritam Kaur on account of interference of Shri Harjit Singh being an IAS Officer and tampering with the Revenue records without fear of contempt of Court of Supreme Court. The applicant has further stated that he has been in litigation for the past 30 years but no relief has been provided to him inspite of the orders of the Apex Court. The applicant has further stated that D.C. Ferozepur has sent the file to the Office of Financial Commissioner Revenue for instructions vide letter dated 10.1.2005. The applicant has further alleged that Shri Harjit Singh, IAS has bought the land as benami in the name of his father Hazur Singh and making full use of his position to thwart all attempts for restoring the land to the applicant. 2. The Deputy Commissioner, Ferozepur vide letter No. 87/DRA, dated 10.1.2005 made a reference to the Financial Commissioner Revenue seeking advice for realloting land to Smt. Pritam Kaur. The relevant portion of the said letter is reproduced as under :- "10. Now two sets of people are claiming relief in this case. On one side Smt. Pritam Kaur has applied for ownership & possession of the land on the basis of Section 144 CPC & Rule 62 of D.P. Rules 1955. The relevant portion of the said letter is reproduced as under :- "10. Now two sets of people are claiming relief in this case. On one side Smt. Pritam Kaur has applied for ownership & possession of the land on the basis of Section 144 CPC & Rule 62 of D.P. Rules 1955. On the other side the illegal occupants shown as "Nazaiz Kabaj" in column 5 are seeking purchase of Provincial Govt. land on basis of possession. 11. In absence of original allotment order record as well as order/record vide which allotment was cancelled it is very difficult for this office to take any decision in this case. Opinion of D.A. was also taken but his opinion seems unnecessarily biased towards Pritam Kaur. In such circumstances it is deemed fit that the entire case along with this case brief be sent to your good office so that your good office may examine the case & may give due instructions to the office of undesigned for taking necessary action in this case." The opinion of the District Attorney, Ferozepur dated 1.12.2004 is reproduced as under :- "1. That the applicant Pritam Kaur wife of Shri Iqbal Singh resident of village Balluana Teh. Abohar, Distt. Ferozepur was allotted land in village Balluana in lieu of land left behind by the applicant and her parents in Pakistan. 2. That due to excess allotment the land was cancelled and put in the name of Provincial Govt. Punjab in the year 1978-79 and thereafter it was allotted to Narain Dass and Khushi Ram son of Chandu Mal and possession was transferred to them vide Roznamcha dated 29.5.1985. 3. That thereupon Pritam Kaur filed an appeal in the Honble Supreme Court of India that both the above said persons had not migrated to India and hence were not entitled to allotment in India as they had no land in Pakistan. 4. That in the above said appeal Honble K. Ramaswamy and Honble Justice K. Venkataswami of the Supreme Court of India vide order dated 5.12.96 have allowed the appeal and set aside the order of Honble High Court and other authorities, setting aside the allotment of Narain Dass and Khushi Ram. 5. 4. That in the above said appeal Honble K. Ramaswamy and Honble Justice K. Venkataswami of the Supreme Court of India vide order dated 5.12.96 have allowed the appeal and set aside the order of Honble High Court and other authorities, setting aside the allotment of Narain Dass and Khushi Ram. 5. In the meanwhile Narain Dass and Khushi Ram sold the said land to some other people, but even their rights have barred by order of Supreme Court dated 3.8.1987 under section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act. 6. That since Pritam Kaur was in cultivating possession of the land in suit since 1951, till 1985 she was preferably entitled and has the right to the possession of the land in dispute. 7. That under Rule 62 of the Displaced Persons (Com. & Reh.) Rules 1955 which reads as under:- "Rule 62. Agricultural land allotted before commencement of these rules : Where any person has been allotted any agricultural land before the commencement of these rules in respect of his verified claim relating to agricultural land left in West Pakistan, the following provisions shall apply : (a) if the land allotted to such person is less than the area which should have been allotted to him under these rules, an additional area of land may, if available, be allotted to him to make up the deficiency. (b) The land allotted to such persons exceeds the area which should have been allotted to him under these rules and if the allotee wishes to retain the excess land, he shall be required to pay the value of the excess land in such instalments as the Settlement Commissioner may determine : Provided that if such person holds a certified claim in respect of any other property, the net compensation in respect of such property may be adjusted against the value of the excess land. Explanation : For the purpose of this rule and the next succeeding rule, the value of the land shall be determined at the rate mentioned in Rule 56. She is entitled to retain even more than the area to which the applicant is entitled for allotment. In view of the facts and circumstances mentioned above, and by virtue of the order of the Supreme Court dated Dec. She is entitled to retain even more than the area to which the applicant is entitled for allotment. In view of the facts and circumstances mentioned above, and by virtue of the order of the Supreme Court dated Dec. 5, 1996, she is entitled to retain in lieu of the land left in Pakistan, at the rate and rules prescribed for sale to allottees under Rule 56 of the D.P.C. & R. Rules 1955 which reads as under :- Rule 56 : Conversion of standard acres into cash : For the purpose of payment of compensation under Rules 51 and 53 to 55 each standard acre of land may be converted into cash : (a) Where the compensation converted in terms of standard acres exceeds does not exceed fifty standard acres, at the rate of 450/- per standard acre. (b) Where the compensation converted in terms of standard acres fifty standard acres : (i) In respect of first fifty standard acres at the rate of Rs. 450/- per standard acre. (ii) In respect of the remaining standard areas, at the rate of Rs. 350/- per standard acre. Since the order of the Supreme Court having reciprocal effect i.e. the position of the land as it was in 1985, had Narain Dass and Khushi Ram not ousted Pritam Kaur, due to their allotment claim. Further the said land was transferred in the name of Punjab Govt. in 2003 and the purchasers from Khushi Ram and Narain Dass have been shown in illegal occupation of the said land. In my view according to the judgment and directions issued by the Honble Apex Court of India vide dated 5.12.1996, if there is no appeal filed by the .... (7-8 words not readable)..... the judgment has attained finality then in the light of the directions of the Supreme Court, necessary action is required to be taken to restore the possession if entitled, to the appellant Pritam Kaur in accordance with the law by the Tehsildar Abohar to avoid the contempt proceedings. In case of failure to implement the directions issued by the Honble Supreme Court of India, contempt proceedings can be launched against the Deptt. of Revenue in view of the judgment of the Apex Court of India." 3. In case of failure to implement the directions issued by the Honble Supreme Court of India, contempt proceedings can be launched against the Deptt. of Revenue in view of the judgment of the Apex Court of India." 3. On this application/complaint and reference of Deputy Commissioner, Ferozepur, record of the appeals filed by Smt. Pritam Kaur before Chief Sales Commissioner Ferozepur against the allotment of land to Hazur Singh and Smt. Sukhjit Kaur in village Balluana, Tehsil Abohar alongwith complete record of Tehsildar Sales, Abohar; and Sales Commissioner, Abohar were called while exercising the powers under Section 15(1) of the Punjab Package Deals Property Act. The following order was passed on 21.7.2005 :- "One application from one Shri Harbir Singh regarding the allotment to Smt. Pritam Kaur was received through registered post and on 4.7.2005 he was heard in person. On enquiries I have found that the matter is quite convoluted. On one hand, there is an order of the Supreme Court dated 5.12.1996 in Civil Appeal No. 429 of 1986, including interim orders dated 27.1.1986 and 3.8.1987 in the same Civil Appeal. In one of these orders the dispossession of Smt. Pritam Kaur from the excess land, during the pendency of the case, was stayed. Another application for temporary injunction was dismissed, on the ground that all sales and transfers of land lis pendens are covered by Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act. In the final order in the said Civil Appeal the contention of the counsel of the appellant Smt. Pritam Kaur that she was eligible for purchase of land in terms of Rule 62 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Rules, 1955 was accepted to the extent to allow her to avail of the remedy in accordance with the law. On the other hand the matter involves interpretations and decisions to be taken under the provisions of Displaced Persons (Compensation & Rehabilitation) Act, 1954 and Rules framed thereunder, as well as the Punjab Package Deals (Disposal) Act, 1976 and Rules framed thereunder. 2. On the other hand the matter involves interpretations and decisions to be taken under the provisions of Displaced Persons (Compensation & Rehabilitation) Act, 1954 and Rules framed thereunder, as well as the Punjab Package Deals (Disposal) Act, 1976 and Rules framed thereunder. 2. In view of these facts, I deem it appropriate, exercising the powers of the Government under Section 15(1) of the Punjab Package Deals Properties Act, to call for the records of appeals filed by Smt. Pritam Kaur before the Chief Sales Commissioner (Deputy Commissioner) Ferozepur against the allotment of land to Shri Hazur Singh and Smt. Sukhjit Kaur in village Balluana, Tehsil Abohar, District Ferozepur along with the complete record of the Tehsildar (Sales) Abohar and that of Sales Commissioner, Abohar (S.D.M). 3. The matter be listed on the judicial side under the Displaced Persons (Compensation & Rehabilitation) Act, 1954 and Punjab Package Deals (Disposal) Act, 1976. 4. OSD(J) to transfer the application given on behalf of Smt. Pritam Kaur and other relevant papers to the judicial side." The parties were also summoned by subsequent orders, including Shri Hazur Singh and Smt. Sukhjit Kaur, through publication in newspaper, when they did not appear through ordinary service. They put in appearance through counsel and counsel for the parties were directed to submit written arguments. Shri G.S. Nagra and Shri G.K. Chawla, Advocates appeared for Shri Hazur Singh and Shri R.S. Chauhan, Advocate appeared for Smt. Sukhjit Kaur. Counsel for the parties have submitted their written arguments. 4. Before discussing the arguments of the parties, it would be appropriate to discuss the background of the case. Smt. Pritam Kaur, petitioner in this case, was allotted excess land to the extent of 47.3-1/4 Standard Acres in village Balluana and the same was cancelled. The said order cancelling the excess allotment in village Balluana was maintained by the Chief Sales Commissioner vide order dated 1.10.1980 passed under Section 24 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation & Rehabilitation) Act. She challenged this order dated 1.10.1984 of Chief Sales Commissioner before Financial Commissioner Revenue under Section 33 of the Act, ibid, and the same was also dismissed by the Financial Commissioner Revenue vide order dated 3.6.1983 passed in Misc. Rehb. No. 20 of 1980-81. She challenged this order dated 1.10.1984 of Chief Sales Commissioner before Financial Commissioner Revenue under Section 33 of the Act, ibid, and the same was also dismissed by the Financial Commissioner Revenue vide order dated 3.6.1983 passed in Misc. Rehb. No. 20 of 1980-81. Thereafter Smt. Pritam Kaur assailed the aforementioned order of Financial Commissioner Revenue in Punjab and Haryana High Court by way of CWP No. 5682 of 1983 and the said petition was also ultimately dismissed in limine on 30.7.1984 by the Honble High Court. The Tehsildar Fazilka was directed to retrieve the cancelled area from the possession of the allottee in due course of law. 5. After the cancellation of excess land in the name of Smt. Pritam Kaur vide order dated 9.11.1979 passed by Managing Officer, 184 Kanals 6 Marlas of land was allotted each to Khushi Ram and Narayan Dass sons of Chandu Ram vide Rapat No. 279 and 280 dated 19.3.1980 and the possession of 184 Kanals 6 Marlas of the land was given to Narayan Dass vide Rapat No. 450 of 29.5.1985 and the possession of 151 Kanals 19 Marlas was given to Khushi Ram vide Rapat No. 451 dated 29.5.1985. The total allotted land of 368 Kanals 12 Marlas was sold by Narayan Dass and Khushi Ram (hereinafter referred to as "the Sippy brothers") to Hazur Singh, Sukhjit Kaur (on 14.6.89 and 15.6.89) and others through sale deeds and it has been revealed from the report of Tehsildar Abohar dated 27.4.1985 addressed to Sub-Divisional Magistrate Abohar that vide order dated 29.12.1981 passed by Shri V.V. Sharma, Director, Government of India, delegated Department of Rehabilitation, Delhi with delegated powers of Central Government under Section 33 of Displaced Persons (Compensation & Rehabilitation) Act, 1954, dismissed the petition of Smt. Pritam Kaur filed against the order dated 17.3.1981 (discussed later in this order) passed by Shri Prem Narayan, Chief Settlement Commissioner, New Delhi. Thereafter a CWP No. 1377 of 1985 was filed by Smt. Pritam Kaur in the High Court of Delhi against the assessed claim in favour of the Sippy brothers, which was also dismissed vide order dated 1.8.1985. In the meanwhile Government of Punjab, Department of Rehabilitation sent letter No. 2876/Legal dated 24.1.1985 directing the Deputy Commissioner, Ferozepur to retrieve the cancelled area from the unauthorized possession of allotee under due process of law. In the meanwhile Government of Punjab, Department of Rehabilitation sent letter No. 2876/Legal dated 24.1.1985 directing the Deputy Commissioner, Ferozepur to retrieve the cancelled area from the unauthorized possession of allotee under due process of law. In view of this order the possession of the land allotted in excess to Pritam Kaur was retrieved (Rapat No., date and mutation not available) while the matter was under litigation. 6. Smt. Pritam Kaur filed a petition under Section 33 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation & Rehabilitation) Act, 1954 before the Director, Government of India, Department of Rehabilitation, New Delhi with delegated powers under Section 33 of the Act challenging the order dated 17.3.1981 passed by Shri Prem Narain, Authorised Settlement Commissioner, New Delhi, whereby he dismissed the petition of Pritam Kaur filed against the order dated 3.2.1971 of Shri M.P. Misra, Authorised Settlement Commissioner, who assessed the claim in favour of respondent Nos. 3 and 4 (the Sippy brothers). This petition was decided by the Director on 29.12.1981. The brief facts, as stated in the order, are as under :- "Briefly the facts of the case as stated are that Late Dewan Chandu Mal R.B. Jagat Rai Sipahimalani father of S/Shri Narain Das Sippy and Khushi Ram Sippy respondent Nos. 3 & 4 respectively owned 506 acres and 33 ghuntas of land in Pakistan. He had two sons viz. S/Shri Narain Dass Sippy (respondent No. 3) and Khushi Ram Sippy (respondent No. 4). Whereas Dewan Chandu Mal R.B. Jagat Rai Sipahimalani did not migrate to India after partition and remained in Pakistan till his death on 27.4.1955, the two sons viz S/Shri Narain Dass Sippy and Khushi Ram Sippy migrated to India sometime in the year 1947 and 1948 respectively. On migration to India S/Shri Narain Dass Sippy and Khushi Ram Sippy did not file any claim till 1955. On the death of their father in the year 1955 in Pakistan, they filed an R.G. application in December, 1955. The R.G. application was first time heard and rejected by an order dated 17.4.1957 passed by Shri Sawan Singh, Authorised Settlement Commissioner on the ground that since the father did not migrate to India, the claim was not tenable under the rules. The R.G. application was first time heard and rejected by an order dated 17.4.1957 passed by Shri Sawan Singh, Authorised Settlement Commissioner on the ground that since the father did not migrate to India, the claim was not tenable under the rules. This order of 17.4.1957 passed by the Settlement Commissioner came up for Revision under Section 24 of the Act before Shri Sudarshan Aggarwal, Authorised Chief Settlement Commissioner after a period of 13 years. The Authorised Chief Settlement Commissioner vide his order dated 4.2.1970 accepted the revision on the ground that the property which formed the subject-matter of the R.G. application was ancestral wherein the petitioners had interest by mere birth. He set aside the order passed by Shri Sawan Singh and remanded the case for examination of the relevant records produced by the petitioner from Pakistan and for deciding the matter after affording an opportunity of being heard of the petitioner. On remand the case came up for hearing before Shri M.P. Mistra, Authorised Settlement Commissioner who vide his order dated 3.2.1971 verified the claim in respect of the entire property in favour of S/Shri Narain Dass Sippy and Khushi Ram Sippy." The Director Rehabilitation, in his order dated 29.12.1981, observed as under :- "In the instant case the property according to the admission made by the respondent Nos. 3 & 4 was owned by their father who died in Pakistan in the year 1955 and they claimed the ownership after the death of their father. This type of inheritance of the properties is neither envisaged nor contemplated in the Displaced Persons (Compensation & Rehabilitation) Act, 1954 and the rules framed thereunder and as such respondent Nos. 3 & 4 could not be held entitled to compensation on the grounds of inheritance. Since the order dated 3.2.1971 gives benefit to the respondent Nos. 3 & 4 which has not been provided for in the Act, the order is bad in law and cannot be upheld merely on the ground that it was passed 11 years ago. The question that remains to be ascertained is as to whether these properties were ancestral and if so, whether respondent Nos. 3 & 4 had any share in these properties and if so, the extent to which the claim could be verified in their favour. Although on the face of it, I do not find that the respondent Nos. The question that remains to be ascertained is as to whether these properties were ancestral and if so, whether respondent Nos. 3 & 4 had any share in these properties and if so, the extent to which the claim could be verified in their favour. Although on the face of it, I do not find that the respondent Nos. 3 & 4 have been able to conclusively prove the ancestral nature of the property in the proceedings before the lower tribunal yet in order to give them a fair chance I remand the case to the Settlement Commissioner for determining these issues after giving due opportunity to the respondent Nos. 3 & 4." The case was remanded to the Settlement Commissioner for decision. The subsequent proceedings are not available on the file. However, it appears that the matter remained under litigation subsequently also at various levels as is apparent from the order of Honble Supreme Court dated 3.12.1996 passed in Civil Appeal No. 425 of 1986, whereby the order dated 1.8.1985 passed by Delhi High Court, dismissing the writ petition of Pritam Kaur, was under challenge. 7. Smt. Pritam Kaur challenged the order of Delhi High Court dated 1.8.1985 vide Civil Appeal No. 429 of 1986 in the Supreme Court of India and also filed Civil Miscellaneous Application No. 48364 of 1985 ? (the year of civil appeal No. 429 has been given as 1986 whereas civil miscellaneous application have been given the year 1985. There appears to be some error in writing the year, because the miscellaneous application has to bear the same or subsequent year of the civil appeal. However, error in year appears to be in the photo copies of the orders of Supreme Court) which came up for hearing before the Honble Supreme Court on 27.1.1986. There appears to be some error in writing the year, because the miscellaneous application has to bear the same or subsequent year of the civil appeal. However, error in year appears to be in the photo copies of the orders of Supreme Court) which came up for hearing before the Honble Supreme Court on 27.1.1986. Upon hearing the counsel for the appellant Smt. Pritam Kaur, the Apex Court passed the order that "pending the hearing and final disposal by this Court on the application of stay above-mentioned after notice, the operation of the order dated 1.8.1985 of the High Court at New Delhi in CWP No. 377 of 1985 and the dispossession of the petitioner/appellant from the land allotted to her in village Balluana, District Ferozepur which was the subject-matter of dispute in CWP No. 377 of 1985 on the file of the High Court at New Delhi be and are hereby stayed." It is worth mentioning that the Settlement Commissioner vide order dated 28.5.1985 while rejecting the application of Pritam Kaur against her dispossession from the land allotted to her in excess, it was ordered that the possession be delivered to Sippy brothers on or before 15.6.1985, but surprisingly the possession was delivered to them next day on 29.5.1985. Smt. Pritam Kaur filed another civil miscellaneous application which came up for hearing before the Apex Court on 3.8.1987 after the date of her dispossession. The Apex Court passed the following orders :- "There is no need to issue temporary injunction prayed for in view of Section 52 of Transfer of Property Act. The Civil Miscellaneous Applications are dismissed." 8. Civil Appeal No. 429 of 1986 filed by Smt. Pritam Kaur against the allotment of land to Sippy brothers came up for hearing before Honble Supreme Court and it was allowed vide order dated 5.12.1996. The operative para of the order of Honble Supreme Court is reproduced, in italics, as under :- "From the evidence, it appears that, admittedly, they (Sippy brothers) filed their applications in December, 1955. Under these circumstances, the findings recorded by the authorities that the properties are the joint family properties in which the respondent Nos. The operative para of the order of Honble Supreme Court is reproduced, in italics, as under :- "From the evidence, it appears that, admittedly, they (Sippy brothers) filed their applications in December, 1955. Under these circumstances, the findings recorded by the authorities that the properties are the joint family properties in which the respondent Nos. 4 and 5 had a share and, therefore, they are entitled to file their claims, are ex facie incorrect in view of the admission made by Narain Dutt Sippy by himself and on behalf of Khushi Ram Sippy, his brother, that they succeeded, by intestate succession, to the property left by his father on his demise on April 27, 1955 in Pakistan. Therefore, this is not a case of their bearing immovable property at the time of their displacement. On the other hand, they have succeeded to the immovable property by intestate succession left by his father in Pakistan in April 1955, on his demise. The question, therefore, arises : whether such a claim can be registered under the Act Displaced Persons (Compensation & Rehabilitation) Act, 1954 after the expiry of limitation prescribed under the Act and whether the authorities were justified to register and verify the same ? In fact, Section 4(1) itself gives power for making an application of the verified claims. In other words, the claims registered under the Act or the Supplementary Act, 1954 or the States Acts referred to earlier, could be verified before the appropriate date and they alone are entitled to make the application by a notification before June 30, 1955. In view of the admission that the application came to be made in December, 1955, the application is clearly barred and is not warranted. The entertainment of application and disposal by the authorities, though at the instance of the revisional authorities, is not in accordance with law. It is stated that the appellant also is a displaced person, though he was found to be in excess of the prescribed standard acres. Shri S.K. Bagga, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellants, contends that by operation of Rule 62 of the Rules, he is entitled to purchase the land as per the procedure prescribed thereunder. When we asked the learned counsel to place before us the order of allotment and all the details, he was unable to place any of the material before us. When we asked the learned counsel to place before us the order of allotment and all the details, he was unable to place any of the material before us. As a result, we cannot go into that question. If law permits and the appellant is entitled in accordance with law, it may be open to him to avail of the remedy in accordance with law. The appeal is accordingly allowed. The order of the High Court and that of the authorities stand set aside. No costs. Sd/- (K. Ramaswamy) Sd/- (K. Venkataswami)" It was thus held by the Apex Court that Sippy brothers were not entitled to the allotment of land. The entertainment of their application and disposal of the authorities, though at the instance of revisional authorities, is not in accordance with law. The Honble Supreme Court also observed in this order dated 5.12.1996, while disposing of the aforesaid Civil Appeal, that it was stated before the Apex Court that the appellant is also a displaced person, though she was found in excess of the prescribed Standard Acres. "Shri S.K. Bagga, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant contends that in application of Rule 62, the petitioner is entitled to purchase the land as per the procedure prescribed thereunder. When we asked the learned counsel to place before us the allotment order and all the details, he was unable to place any of the material before us, as a result, we cannot go into that question. If law permits and the appellant is entitled in accordance with law, it may be open to him to avail of the remedy in accordance with law." 9. It would also be appropriate to reproduce Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 referred by the Honble Supreme Court in its order dated 3.8.1987, since the case of Smt. Pritam Kaur hinges upon the interpretation of this section for disposal of her application for re-transfer of the land taken out of her possession being in excess :- "52. Transfer of property pending suit relating thereto - During the pendency in any Court having authority within the limits of India excluding the State of Jammu and Kashmir or established beyond such limits by the Central Government of any suit or proceedings which is not collusive and in which any right to immoveable property is directly and specifically in question, the property cannot be transferred or otherwise dealt with by any party to the suit or proceeding so as to affect the rights of any other party thereto under any decree or order which may be made therein, except under the authority of the Court and on such terms as it may impose. [Explanation - For the purposes of this section, the pendency of a suit or proceeding shall be deemed to commence from the date of the presentation of the plaint or the institution of the proceeding in a Court of competent jurisdiction, and to continue until the suit or proceeding has been disposed of by a final decree or order and complete satisfaction or discharge of such decree or order has been obtained, or has become unobtainable by reason of the expiration of any period of limitation prescribed for the execution thereof by any law for the time being in force.]" In view of the discussion held above, it appears that Pritam Kaur petitioner continued to challenge cancellation of her excess land at various forums and also allotment of her excess land to the Sippy brothers even in the year 1981 and before that also. Thus under the rule of lis pendens as envisaged under Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act, Smt. Pritam Kaur is entitled to the relief claimed from 1981 itself when the proceedings were initiated by her as indicated by the Honble Supreme Court in the orders dated 27.1.1986, 3.8.1987 and 5.12.1996. 10. It has been revealed from the report of Tehsildar-cum-Sales, Abohar dated 6.12.2005 that in view of the order of Honble Supreme Court dated 5.12.1996, whereby the allotment to Sippy brothers was cancelled, the mutation has been sanctioned in favour of the Provincial Government vide Nos. 3754 to 3762 dated 14.4.2002, whereby the vendees of Sippy brothers have been shown in illegal/unauthorized possession. This was not correct as the possession should not have been left with them. 3754 to 3762 dated 14.4.2002, whereby the vendees of Sippy brothers have been shown in illegal/unauthorized possession. This was not correct as the possession should not have been left with them. The land was taken away from Smt. Pritam Kaur upon cancellation of her allotment and same procedure was required to be followed in this case. It has been further revealed from the report of Tehsildar Sales dated 6/7.12.2005 that on 16.7.2004, 121 Kanals 10 Marlas land was transferred to Shri Hazur Singh and Smt. Sukhjit Kaur at the rate of Rs. 7,000/- per acre whereas allottees were required to be charged at the rate of Rs. 25,500/- per acre, which was 15% of the Collectors rate of Rs. 1,17,000/- per acre in view of the instructions issued by the Revenue Department vide Memo. No. 3/3/97-LR-3/8585, dated 14.10.2003. 11. Smt. Pritam Kaur has submitted her arguments through her GPA Harbir Singh Aulakh, who was narrated the brief history of the case. The petitioner has contended that Hazur Singh and Sukhjit Kaur applied for the allotment of 121 Kanals 10 Marlas of land in their occupation on account of the sale by Sippy brothers which was held illegal by the Honble Supreme Court vide order dated 5.12.1996. This allotment was made on 6.7.2004. Pritam Kaur, being aggrieved by this order of allotment, filed the instant appeal before the Chief Sales Commissioner, Ferozepur. The allotment was made to Hazur Singh and Sukhjit Kaur in view of the instructions issued vide letter No. 26/28/03-LR-3/5401, dated 22.6.2004 and Memo. No. 3/3/97-LR-3/2857, dated 17.4.1997 wherein it was laid down that those in occupation of the Government land from Kharif 1994, may be allotted land in their occupation. Hazur Singh and Sukhjit Kaur were allotted 121 Kanals 10 Marlas land in equal share in view of these letters vide mutation dated 29.10.2004. Smt. Pritam Kaur has further pleaded that these instructions do not apply in the instant case as neither the Government was owner of the land, in question, in Kharif 1994, nor Hazur Singh and Sukhjit Kaur were tenants of the suit land in Kharif 1994. But Smt. Pritam Kaur was the owner in possession of the suit land in 1994. The Government became owner of the land only when the mutation dated 15.4.2002 was sanctioned after the judgment of the Honble Supreme Court on 5.12.1996. But Smt. Pritam Kaur was the owner in possession of the suit land in 1994. The Government became owner of the land only when the mutation dated 15.4.2002 was sanctioned after the judgment of the Honble Supreme Court on 5.12.1996. Hence, the allotment of land could not be made to the aforesaid persons Hazur Singh and Sukhjit Kaur. 12. Smt. Pritam Kaur, in the written arguments, has further raised a vital point that as per Rule 3(2) sub-rule (ii) an occupant of land was not entitled to apply for allotment of land if he is an allottee or vendee of the land, the allotment or transfer thereof has been cancelled on the grounds of fraud/misrepresentation of facts or otherwise. The relevant portion of Sub- rule (ii) of Rule 3(2) of the Punjab Package Deal Properties (Disposal) Rules, 1976 is reproduced as under :- "3. Transfer of land in rural areas. - (1) Persons entitled to make application for the transfer of land, on the basis of possession - An application for the transfer of land which is rural property, as and when invited by Government may be made by a person, whose own holding is less than five ordinary acres and who is an occupant of such property, or who is landless agriculturist or who is such other landless occupant or belongs to such class of occupants, as may be notified by the Government from time to time : Provided that the applicant - (i) is head of the family; (ii) is a self tiller. Explanation - A widow who is occupant and is getting the land cultivated by her son(s) or by employing servant(s), or otherwise shall be considered as self tiller; (iii) is in continuous and undisputed possession of the land from the crop that may be prescribed by the State Government from time to time; and (iv) has applied for the transfer of the land occupied by him on or before the date, as may be prescribed by the State Government, from time to time. (v) He is an employee of the State Government or is a member of the family of such an employee, except with the prior permission of the Deputy Commissioner of the district in which the property is situated. (v) He is an employee of the State Government or is a member of the family of such an employee, except with the prior permission of the Deputy Commissioner of the district in which the property is situated. (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 or the grounds of fraud, mis-representation of facts or otherwise;" 13. Smt. Pritam Kaur drew the attention of this Court to the fact that Hazur Singh and Sukhjit Kaur are vendees of Narayan Dass Sippy and Khushi Ram Sippy, whose allotment was cancelled by the Honble Supreme Court vide order dated 5.12.1996 being the ineligible allottees of land on the basis of fraud and misrepresentation, as such they were clearly debarred for applying for the allotment on the basis of possession. Smt. Pritam Kaur has also dawn attention to Rule 3(2) regarding the eligibility of the applicants for allotment, wherein it has been laid down that the possession should be undisputed from the entries in the Revenue record. The Punjab Package Deal Property (Disposal) Rules, 1976 deal only with disposal of Government land. But in the present case, Hazur Singh and Sukhjit Kaur were not in occupation of Government land from Kharif 1994 since the Government was not the owner in 1994. It has been further contended that Sukhjit Kaur is a woman transferee and not head of family and under the Rules the case should have been referred to the Chief Sales Commissioner for her eligibility as self-tiller, but the Sales Commissioner passed one line order confirming sale without issuing any notice or proclamation. Hazur Singh and Sukhjit Kaur have not furnished any proof of residence in village Balluana in the shape of voter card, ration card, Chullah Tax receipt or Chowkidara. Their application does not bear the attestation by the lambardar or Sarpanch of the village. Hazur Singh and Sukhjit Kaur have not furnished any proof of residence in village Balluana in the shape of voter card, ration card, Chullah Tax receipt or Chowkidara. Their application does not bear the attestation by the lambardar or Sarpanch of the village. Pritam Kaur has alleged that allotment to Hazur Singh and Sukhjit Kaur has been made on the basis of further mis-representation and fraud and they were also not the residents of the village and it deserves to be set aside and property should be restored to Pritam Kaur as per orders of Supreme Court, being allotee of the land since 1947. 14. In the written arguments submitted on behalf of Hazur Singh and Sukhjit Kaur, their counsel have laid emphasis on the sole ground that since the Displaced Persons (Compensation & Rehabilitation) Act, 1954 has been repealed vide Act No. 38 of 2005 of Government of India, therefore, Rule 62 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation & Rehabilitation) Rules, 1995 referred to in the order of Supreme Court dated 5.12.1996 also stands repealed w.e.f. 6th September, 2005 and no right is now vested in Smt. Pritam Kaur to purchase the excess cancelled area. Further the Financial Commissioner Revenue has no power under Section 33 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation & Rehabilitation) Act, 1954 to provide relief under Rule 62 of the Rules, ibid. It has been further submitted that the appeal was pending with Deputy Commissioner-cum-Chief Sales Commissioner Ferozepur and after the decision of the Chief Sales Commissioner there is further remedy with aggrieved party before the Commissioner of the Division and thereafter the aggrieved party can approach the Financial Commissioner Revenue under Section 15(1) of the Act. Therefore, it has been submitted that the case file called by the Financial Commissioner Revenue may be returned to the concerned authority for proper decision under the Punjab Package Deal Properties (Disposal) Act, 1976. 15. It has been further pointed out that the application submitted by Harbir Singh Aulakh to the Office of Financial Commissioner Revenue entered at Diary No. 219 dated 17.1.2005 is unsigned by him or Pritam Kaur. Moreover, there is no application available on record for the purchase of land by Smt. Pritam Kaur. The respondent No. 2 submitted that he was ready to submit further arguments if the Financial Commissioner Revenue still feels proper as per law. Moreover, there is no application available on record for the purchase of land by Smt. Pritam Kaur. The respondent No. 2 submitted that he was ready to submit further arguments if the Financial Commissioner Revenue still feels proper as per law. Counsel for Sukhjit Kaur also submitted arguments on the aforesaid lines regarding the repeal of the Displaced Persons (Compensation & Rehabilitation) Act, 1954 and the pendency of the proceedings before the Chief Sales Commissioner with the request that the case may be sent back to the Court of Chief Sales Commissioner, Ferozepur. The case was adjourned to 14.12.2005 for further arguments, but no other point was submitted on that date by the counsel for the respondents. Senior State Counsel also submitted his arguments. He has controverted the arguments of opposite counsel. It has been submitted by him that although Displaced Persons (Compensation & Rehabilitation) Act, 1954 has been repealed, it has still got relevance with regard to the rights, obligations and privileges accrued under the old Act in view of Section 6 of the General Clauses Act. He has further submitted that even if the Displaced Persons (Compensation & Rehabilitation) Act, 1954 has been repealed, the respondents cannot draw any benefit from it except to plead that Smt. Pritam Kaur cannot be allotted land under Rule 62 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation & Rehabilitation) Rules, 1955. His contention is that in view of Section 6 of the General Clauses Act, Smt. Pritam Kaur petitioner is entitled to claim benefit under Rule 62 of the Rules, ibid in view of the findings given by the Honble Supreme Court vide order dated 5.12.1996 and interim orders dated 27.1.1986 and 3.8.1987. The Senior State Counsel has also argued that the respondents are not entitled to the transfer of land being unauthorized occupants because they were vendees from the Sippy brothers whose allotment was cancelled since they were not entitled to be allotted this land. He has made reference to Rule 3(2)(ii) as already produced in the written arguments of the petitioner. Further the Senior State Counsel has also submitted that as per Rule 4-B(1) of the Punjab Package Deal Property Rules, 1976, Smt. Pritam Kaur is entitled to the allotment of her excess cancelled area apart from her entitlement under Rule 62 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation & Rehabilitation) Rules, 1955. Further the Senior State Counsel has also submitted that as per Rule 4-B(1) of the Punjab Package Deal Property Rules, 1976, Smt. Pritam Kaur is entitled to the allotment of her excess cancelled area apart from her entitlement under Rule 62 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation & Rehabilitation) Rules, 1955. Counsel for the respondents had pleaded that their right to appeal would be curtailed if the Financial Commissioner Revenue takes up the proceedings pending before the Chief Sales Commissioner at this stage. In reply to this argument, Senior State Counsel has pleaded that Financial Commissioner Revenue is vested with the powers under Section 15(1) of the Punjab Package Deal Property Act and Section 33 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation & Rehabilitation) Act, 1954 to call for the records pending before the lower Court if the circumstances of the case so required and not inconsistent with the provisions of the Act. Therefore, this Court is competent to call for the record of the case because serious allegations have been levelled against Shri Harjit Singh, IAS, who was stated to be posted as SDM Abohar in whose jurisdiction the land in dispute is situated. Besides that he has also pleaded that the order or Honble Supreme Court was passed in the year 1996 but its compliance was still awaited regarding the allotment of land to Smt. Pritam Kaur whose application was pending before the concerned revenue authorities since the year 2002. 16. I have gone through the rival contentions made in the written arguments. Counsel for the parties were also given ample opportunity to advance their oral arguments on 14.12.2005 and on previous dates too. Counsel for Hazur Singh and Sukhjit Kaur submitted that they do not want to advance any arguments, except as pleaded in their written arguments regarding the jurisdiction of the Financial Commissioner Revenue to decide the matter after repeal of the Act and the fact that the matter was pending before the Chief Sales Commissioner and the Financial Commissioner Revenue being the Appellate Court, could not decide the matter. On the technical points raised by counsel for Hazur Singh and Sukhjit Kaur, the relevant provisions of Section 15 of the Punjab Package Deal Properties (Disposal) Act, 1976 has to be looked into which is reproduced as under :- "15. On the technical points raised by counsel for Hazur Singh and Sukhjit Kaur, the relevant provisions of Section 15 of the Punjab Package Deal Properties (Disposal) Act, 1976 has to be looked into which is reproduced as under :- "15. Power to call for record for proceedings - (1) The State Government may at any time call for the record of any case under the Act pending before, or disposed of by, any officer and may pass such order in relation thereto as in its opinion the circumstances of the case require and as is not inconsistent with any of the provision contained in this Act or the rules made thereunder." It is amply clear that the Financial Commissioner Revenue is vested with the powers to call for the record of any case pending before any authority below if the circumstances of the case so require. In this case serious allegations have been made regarding official influence exercised by a serving officer of high rank who remained posted at Abohar and had also dealt with the file of Pritam Kaur in his capacity as SDM/Settlement Commissioner during the period from 8.6.1988 to 26.5.1990 where Smt. Pritam Kaur in related matters was representing for non-recovery of rent from her in respect of the excess land, who had first allegedly purchased the property benami and then further got it allotted to himself (benami) in the name of his father Hazur Singh and real sister Sukhjit Kaur. Therefore, in such a case it was felt appropriate to call for the record on the reference of the Deputy Commissioner-cum-Chief Commissioner and on the complaint made by Pritam Kaur although the complaint has not been signed by Pritam Kaur or her Attorney, but it has been diarised in the Court and Pritam Kaurs GPA Harbir Singh Aulakh has owned the complaint and reiterated the averments made in the said complaint. Second contention of the counsel for Hazur Singh and Sukhjit Kaur is that on account of repeal of the Displaced Persons (Compensation & Rehabilitation) Act, 1954, this Court is ceased of the jurisdiction to exercise powers under Rule 62 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation & Rehabilitation) Rules, 1955. The Honble Supreme Court has allowed the Competent Authority to decide her case for allotment of the excess area taken out of her possession. The Honble Supreme Court has allowed the Competent Authority to decide her case for allotment of the excess area taken out of her possession. It is an admitted fact that the Displaced Persons (Compensation & Rehabilitation) Act, 1954 has been repealed by Act No. 38 of 2005 of Parliament with effect from 6th September, 2005. Now effect of the repeal of the Act has to be looked into in view of the observation of the Honble Supreme Court regarding the rights of Smt. Pritam Kaur under Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act and Rule 62 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation & Rehabilitation) Rules, 1955. Keeping in view the observation of Honble Supreme Court, while deciding the appeal of Pritam Kaur vide order dated 5.12.1996, it would be appropriate here to reproduce Section 6 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 as under :- "6 Effect of repeal - Where this Act, or any Central Act or Regulation made after the commencement of this Act, repeals any enactment hitherto made or hereafter to be made, then, unless a different intention appears, the repeal shall not - (a) revive anything not in force or existing at the time at which the repeal takes effect; or (b) affect the previous operation of any enactment so repealed or anything duly done or suffered thereunder; or (c) affect any right, privilege, obligation or liability acquired, accrued or incurred under any enactment so repealed; or (d) affect any penalty, forfeiture or punishment incurred in respect of any offence committed against any enactment so repealed; or (e) effect any investigation, legal proceeding or remedy in respect of any such right, privilege, obligation, liability, penalty, forfeiture or punishment as aforesaid; and any such investigation, legal proceeding or remedy may be instituted, continued or enforced, and any such penalty, forfeiture or punishment may be imposed as if the repealing Act or Regulation had not been passed." Rule 62 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation & Rehabilitation) Rules, 1955 reads as under :- "62. Agricultural land allotted before commencement of these rules - Where any person has been allotted any agricultural land before the commencement of these rules in respect of his verified claim relating to agricultural land left in West Pakistan, the following provisions shall apply :- (a) If land allotted to such person is less than the area which should have been allotted to him under these rules, an additional area of land may, if available, be allotted to him to make up the deficiency. (b) If the land allotted to such person exceeds the area which should have been allotted to him under these rules and if the allottee wishes to retain the excess land, he shall be required to pay the value of the excess land in such installments as the Settlement Commissioner may determine. Provided that if such person holds a certified claim in respect of any other property, the net compensation in respect of such property may be adjusted against the value of the excess land : Explanation - For the purpose of this rule and the next succeeding rule, the value of land shall be determined at the rate mentioned in Rule 56." Apart from the right of Pritam Kaur under Rule 62, she is also entitled to transfer of the cancelled area of her excess land under Rule 4-B(1) of the Punjab Package Deal Properties (Disposal) Act, 1976, which has been reproduced below :- "4-B. Sale by negotiation of the cancelled land in rural area - (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in Rules 3 and 4, the land allotted to a displaced person in excess of his entitlement the allotment whereof has been cancelled, may be transferred to such allottee or his successors-in-interest or his bona fide vendee(s) at the negotiated price in the manner hereinafter specified if such an allottee is in continuous possession of the land." 17. The Honble Supreme Court vide order dated 3.8.1987, while disposing of Civil Miscellaneous Application Nos. 48364 of 1985 and 4184 of 1985, has observed that there is no need to issue temporary injunction prayed for by the petitioner Smt. Pritam Kaur in view of Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. The Honble Supreme Court vide order dated 3.8.1987, while disposing of Civil Miscellaneous Application Nos. 48364 of 1985 and 4184 of 1985, has observed that there is no need to issue temporary injunction prayed for by the petitioner Smt. Pritam Kaur in view of Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. As per Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act already reproduced on page 12 of this order, if a suit is pending in which it is questioned that property cannot be transferred or otherwise dealt with by any party to such suit or proceeding so as to affect the rights of any other party thereto, the subsequent transferee will be bound and he cannot have any right to property of the earlier transferee if the suit is decreed. Keeping in view the orders of Honble Supreme Court dated 27.1.1986, 3.8.1987 and 5.12.1996 the transfers made in favour of Hazur Singh, Sukhjit Kaur and others through sales by Sippy brothers in the years 1989 and 1990 are hit by Section 52 of Transfer of Property Act since their allotment was cancelled by the Honble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 429 of 1986 referred above. Therefore, the transferees of Sippy brothers had acquired no legal right, interest or title in the property, in dispute. All further transfers of land by any of the vendee are equally hit by Supreme Court ruling. Smt. Pritam Kaur shall be deemed to be in continuous possession of the land because the matter remained pending under litigation even before 1981 because of illegal allotment to Sippy brothers which was subsequently cancelled by the Honble Supreme Court in 1996. The property has to be disposed of as per law prevalent at the time when the excess land of Pritam Kaur was cancelled. Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act protects the rights of Pritam Kaur, qua the land in dispute vis-a-vis all subsequent transferees. Moreover, in view of the stay dated 27.1.1986 issued by Supreme Court against her dispossession (which was received after giving possession to the Sippy brothers on 29.5.1985 and so could not be made effective vis-a-vis the Sippy brothers) the State Government was still not permitted to further transfer it to others before considering her claim. Moreover, in view of the stay dated 27.1.1986 issued by Supreme Court against her dispossession (which was received after giving possession to the Sippy brothers on 29.5.1985 and so could not be made effective vis-a-vis the Sippy brothers) the State Government was still not permitted to further transfer it to others before considering her claim. Honble Supreme Court has allowed the Competent Authority in the year 1996 to decide the matter of transfer of land to Smt. Pritam Kaur under Rule 62, if law permits, because the counsel for the appellant could not place before the Court, the order of allotment and all other details and material required for that purpose. Had the required material been produced before the Honble Supreme Court then the allotment could have been ordered at that time in the year 1996 keeping in view the provisions of Rule 62 of Displaced Persons (Compensation & Rehabilitation) Rules, 1955. 18. The main contention of Hazur Singh and Sukhjit Kaur that this Court is not competent to hear the case in view of the repeal of Displaced Persons (Compensation & Rehabilitation) Act, 1954, is not sustainable, firstly because that they have no locus standi to challenge the rights/privilege of Pritam Kaur in the land, because they are no more lawful vendees of Sippy brothers because the allotment in favour of the vendors had been held to be illegal and has been cancelled by the Apex Court itself holding them ineligible under the Displaced Persons (Compensation & Rehabilitation) Act, 1954. The illegal vendees cannot acquire any rights in the property better than the vendors i.e. Sippy brothers. Their possession on the land subsequent to the cancellation of allotment to Sippy brothers becomes not only unauthorized but illegal because of the fact that the land was got allotted by Sippy brothers by mis- representation. Hazur Singh and Sukhjit Kaur are not entitled to transfer of land in view of the terms of Rule 3 Sub-rule (2) Clause (ii) reproduced above. Secondly the effect of repeal of Displaced Persons (Compensation & Rehabilitation) Act, 1954 has to be examined. Section 6 of the General Clauses Act lays down that the repeal shall not affect any right, privilege, obligation or liability acquired, accrued or incurred under any enactment so repealed. Secondly the effect of repeal of Displaced Persons (Compensation & Rehabilitation) Act, 1954 has to be examined. Section 6 of the General Clauses Act lays down that the repeal shall not affect any right, privilege, obligation or liability acquired, accrued or incurred under any enactment so repealed. Keeping in view Clause (c) of Section 6 of the General Clauses Act, Smt. Pritam Kaur was entitled to retain the excess area allotted to her subject to the payment of value of the excess land in such installments as the Settlement Commissioner may determine. However, the issue of transfer/allotment of land to Pritam Kaur was not taken up by the concerned authorities after the decision of Honble Supreme Court in the year 1996. Not only that this matter of allotment was not decided by the authorities but the order of Honble Supreme Court was itself reflected in the revenue record only in the year 2002. Since repeal of the Act is in the year 2005, therefore, it cannot affect the rights of Smt. Pritam Kaur regarding the allotment of excess area on payment of value of the land as determined by the Competent Authority, which accrued in the year 1996 in view of the order of the Supreme Court. Smt. Pritam Kaur had applied to the Deputy Commissioner-cum-Chief Sales Commissioner vide application dated 30.7.2002 for compliance of the orders of Honble Supreme Court and restoring the possession of the land to her, which was cancelled being in excess of her entitlement. The matter kept on lingering and the application dated 30.7.2002 was not decided. The repeal of the Act shall not affect any legal proceedings or remedy in respect of any such rights, privilege, obligation etc. and such legal proceedings may be continued as the repealing of Act has not been passed. In the case of Mandir Devi Dwala, Patiala v. The Deputy Custodian General, India, New Delhi and others, (1962 PLJ 1024), it has been held that when Ordinance XIII of 2006 Bk. Repealed Ordinance No. IX of 2004 Bk. all legal proceedings which were pending would be saved and could be continued and finally disposed of under Ordinance IX of 2004 Bk. In another case P.V. Mohamud Barmay Sons v. Director of Enforcement, (1992 Supp. Repealed Ordinance No. IX of 2004 Bk. all legal proceedings which were pending would be saved and could be continued and finally disposed of under Ordinance IX of 2004 Bk. In another case P.V. Mohamud Barmay Sons v. Director of Enforcement, (1992 Supp. (2) SCC 724), it has been held that despite its repeal, the penalty, liability, forfeiture or prosecution for acts done while the repealed Act was in force were kept alive though no action thereunder was taken when the Repealed Act was in force, and the rights acquired or accrued or the liabilities incurred or any penalty, forfeiture or punishment incurred during its operation remain kept alive. Therefore, keeping in view the provisions of Section 6 of General Clauses Act and the law laid down by the Honble Supreme Court and the Punjab and Haryana High Court and specific order of the Honble Supreme Court qua Smt. Pritam Kaur herself while disposing of her Civil Appeal No. 429 of 1985, I am of the view that the right of Smt. Pritam Kaur subsists regarding the land which was cancelled being excess allotment. Parallel provision has been made in Rule 4-B(1) of the Displaced Persons (Compensation & Rehabilitation) Rules, 1955 regarding the allotment of land to the persons who are found in excess allotment of land. 19. So far as the allegation against Harjit Singh, IAS regarding exercising of his influence of transfer of land being in unauthorized possession in the name of Hazur Singh and Sukhjit Kaur, his father and sister respectively, is concerned, this land had been purchased by the vendees from the Sippy brothers on 14.6.1989 and 15.6.1989 during the tenure of Shri Harjit Singh, SDM-cum- Settlement Commissioner while he remained posted in Abohar from 8.6.1988 to 26.5.1990 and had the occasion to deal with related files of Pritam Kaur as Settlement Officer. I have to prima facie hold that he might have exercised his influence to get the allotment made in the names of his kin because the other persons who were also vendees in possession of Sippy brothers or subsequent vendees of the vendees of the Sippy brothers, have not been transferred ownership of that area through allotment, which is in their illegal possession. The propriety of sale/allotment/transfer of land to close relatives and the manner in which it was done, perhaps needs to be looked into through further probe. The propriety of sale/allotment/transfer of land to close relatives and the manner in which it was done, perhaps needs to be looked into through further probe. Even otherwise they were not eligible for the allotment since they were not in possession of Government land since Kharif 94, since the land was mutated to the Government only in 2002. It has also been observed that the kin of Shri Harjit Singh were transferred land at a lower price also than the rate prescribed in the instructions dated 14.10.2003 referred in para 10 (supra). The rate per acre should have been charged @ Rs. 25,500/- but Shri Hazur Singh and Smt. Sukjit Kaur were allowed the rate of Rs. 7,000/- per acre contrary to the instructions, which also appeared to be an undue favour. The mutation was sanctioned in the name of Provincial Government in view of the decision of the Supreme Court dated 5.12.1996 on 15.4.2002 and the land measuring 121 Kanals 10 Marlas was transferred to Hazur Singh and Sukjit Kaur on 16.7.2004. Application dated 30.7.2002 of Pritam Kaur for the compliance of the order of Supreme Court regarding allotment of land to her under Rule 62 of Displaced Persons (Compensation & Rehabilitation) Rules, 1955 was not considered. However, this matter of exercising influence needs to be probed on the administrative side which may be taken up separately. Apart from the land in possession of Hazur Singh and Sukhjit Kaur, other persons are also in possession of the land which was declared excess in the hands of Pritam Kaur and subsequently allotted to the Sippy brothers, who sold it further to them or subsequent vendees between the year 1989 to 2002 including the sales even after 1996 judgment of Honble Supreme Court as per the report of Tehsildar Abohar dated 19.12.2005. It has been observed that the reports of Tehsildar Abohar placed in the record do not disclose when the possession was taken from Pritam Kaur and when it was entered in the name of Provincial Government, although there are entries in Rapat No. 450-451 dated 29.5.1985 that the possession has been delivered to Sippy brothers but these reports and other record is silent with regard to the fact as to when the mutation was entered in the name of Provincial Government after the cancellation of the land in the name of Pritam Kaur and subsequently the possession was taken from her. Therefore, it appears that the possession was directly taken from Smt. Pritam Kaur and delivered to Sippy brothers. However, it has to be presumed as per the observation of the Honble Supreme Court in the order dated 3.8.1987 that Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act shall operate with regard to the protection of rights of Pritam Kaur from the date of commencement of plaint/dispute/litigation which continued even before 1981. Smt. Pritam Kaur is deemed to be in possession of the land by virtue of Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act, as per observations of the Honble Supreme Court. The authorities below also appeared to have ignored the order of Honble Supreme Court regarding consideration of the rights of Smt. Pritam Kaur for the allotment of land which was held by her till it was cancelled being in excess and possession taken from her on 29.5.1985 (and subsequently given over to the Sippy brothers). The conduct of the concerned officers, who showed disregard to the orders of the Honble Supreme Court dated 27.1.1986, 3.8.1987 and 5.12.1996 also needs a probe and those found guilty deserve proceedings to be initiated against them. 20. Keeping in view above discussion, I hold that the land has been wrongly allotted/transferred to Hazur Singh and Sukhjit Kaur on the basis of unauthorized possession on 16.7.2004 and the allotment is, therefore, set aside, because they were not in unauthorized possession but in illegal possession of land since the land was purchased by them from the vendors (Sippy brothers), who were ab initio ineligible to obtain the allotment as held by the Supreme Court. According to Rule 3(2)(ii) of the Punjab Package Deal Properties (Disposal) Rules, 1976 Shri Hazur Singh and Smt. Sukjit Kaur in MR 18 and 19 of 2005 respectively they were not eligible/entitled to make application for transfer of land being vendees of the land, the allotment whereof had been cancelled on the ground of ineligibility of the original allottees-vendors. Even if they had been eligible or by any stretch of reasoning, they were held to be eligible to apply, their right to consideration could not supersede the pre-existing right of Smt. Pritam Kaur in view of the existence of Rule 4-B(1) and Rule 62 of Displaced Persons (Compensation & Rehabilitation) Rules, 1955. Accordingly, the Miscellaneous Revision Nos. 18 and 19 of 2005 of Smt. Pritam Kaur are accepted and the allotment orders dated 16.7.2004 in favour of Shri Hazur Singh and Smt. Sukhjit Kaur made by Tehsildar (Sales) Abohar and confirmed by Sales Commissioner, Abohar on 18.8.2004 are hereby set aside. The Deputy Commissioner/Chief Sales Commissioner Ferozepur is directed to ensure the compliance of orders of Supreme Court in letter and spirit by allotting 368 Kanals 12 Marlas of land back to Smt. Pritam Kaur which was taken away from her possession on 29.5.1985 as laid down in Rule 4-B(1) of the Punjab Package Deal Properties (Disposal) Act, 1976 and Rule 62 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation & Rehabilitation) Rules, 1955 and physical possession of land, in question, be delivered to Smt. Pritam Kaur and the same be reflected in the revenue record by making necessary entries (the stay against her dispossession issued by the Honble Supreme Court having been received too late and after her dispossession at that time). The reference of Deputy Commissioner/Chief Sales Commissioner Ferozepur, dated 10.1.05 also stands disposed of and he may arrange to get the complete record of this case which has been requisitioned by this Court. The compliance of this order should be made within 3 months of this order. The order be communicated to the parties concerned. Order accordingly.