Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 9 (PNJ)

Krishan Lal v. Ram Chand

2009-01-06

H.S.BHALLA, M.M.KUMAR

body2009
Judgment M.M.Kumar, J. 1. This appeal filed under Clause X of the Letters Patent has been preferred by the appellant- respondents against the judgement dated 22.3.2006 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in CWP No. 10509 of 1994. The learned Single Judge has accepted the claim made by the petitioner- respondents that their predecessor in interest were equal share holders in the land allotted to one of them in lieu of the joint land left by them in West Pakistan at the time of their migration to India. 2. The facts of this case are rooted in the saga of partition which left lakhs of people homeless because they have to run for shelter to safer area. One Mansa Ram who lived in West Pakistan had two sons namely Gobind Ram and Tula Ram. The appellants before us are the successors of Gobind Ram. They were respondent in the petition. The writ petition was filed by the successors of Tula Ram. Both the brothers owned land in village Hatti Hassan Ali, District Muzzaffargarh now in West Pakistan. They were owner in possession of the land jointly in equal shares. 3. On their migration towards this side of the border in India they became entitled to be allotted agricultural land in India in lieu of the land left by them in West Pakistan. It appears that while allotting the land measuring 5 standard acres and unit in village Kapran Hadbast No. 27, Tehsil Panipat, District Karnal under the Rehabilitation Scheme embodied in the Land Resettlement Manual the name of only Gobind Ram was mentioned and the name of Tula Ram was missing. Thus, the department while making quasi permanent allotment conferred proprietary rights in respect of the entire land in favour of Gobind Ram, the predecessor in interest of the appellants, in pursuance of Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954 (for brevity the Act) and the Rules framed thereunder. The successor who had filed the original petition being sons and wife of Tula Ram detected the error and asked for rectification. Vide order dated 29.7.1964, the Managing Officer passed rectification order holding that the proprietary rights were conferred upon both the brothers. Gobind Ram died in the year 1958 and his brother Tula Ram expired in the year 1963. The successor who had filed the original petition being sons and wife of Tula Ram detected the error and asked for rectification. Vide order dated 29.7.1964, the Managing Officer passed rectification order holding that the proprietary rights were conferred upon both the brothers. Gobind Ram died in the year 1958 and his brother Tula Ram expired in the year 1963. The learned Single Judge has noticed the order dated 23.4.1991 passed by Tehsildar (Sales)-cum Managing Officer observing that the mistake was a clerical in nature and the successor of Tula Ram and his daughter should also be allotted land in equal shares along-with the legal heirs of Gobind Ram. 4. The litigation ensued between the collaterals and the revision petition filed by the appellant-respondents under Section 24 of the Act was accepted on 26.10.1993 on the ground that the original allotment was made to Gobind Ram in the year 1949 alone recording him to be the sole owner of the land in question and after 15 years the Assistant Registrar, Jalandhar could not have issued an order by incorporating the name of Tula Ram or his successors. The rectification order issued on 20.7.1964 was also set aside on the ground that no order could have been passed against the dead person and in favour of another dead person especially when the order was not implemented for a fairly long time. The legal heirs of Tula Ram filed a petition under Section 33 of the Act and lost the litigation before the Financial Commissioner and Secretary to Government of Haryana who dismissed their petition vide order dated 5.5.1994. It was against the aforementioned order that CWP No. 10509 of 1994 was filed. The learned Single Judge after noticing all the afore- mentioned facts has reiterated the order dated 20.7.1964 issued by the Managing Officer (Annexure P.1). The plea of non availability of the record raised by the appellant-respondent has been repelled by holding that it was the responsibility of the Government and not of the petitioner- respondent. In support of his finding the learned Single Judge has placed firm reliance on the copy of Jamabandi (P.7) which in unequivocal terms shows that the land was in the joint name of Gobind Ram and Tula Ram sons of Mansa Ram alongwith others shown to be as small owners/ mortgagee in six shares i.e. Ala Baksh etc. In support of his finding the learned Single Judge has placed firm reliance on the copy of Jamabandi (P.7) which in unequivocal terms shows that the land was in the joint name of Gobind Ram and Tula Ram sons of Mansa Ram alongwith others shown to be as small owners/ mortgagee in six shares i.e. Ala Baksh etc. According to the Jamabandi of the year 1946-47 the land is shown to be situated in village Thati/69/Issan Alia Tehsil Kot Adu, District Mujjafargarh. The learned Single Judge also reached the conclusion that a categorical averment made in para 13(vi) have not been contested by the respondents by giving any categorical denial. It has been inferred from the pleadings that the land was in equal shares of both the brothers Gobind Ram and Tula Ram. The learned Single Judge also concluded that initial error becomes apparent from another fact as Gobind Ram has claimed in form (R.4/1) where he had stated that the land in question was situated in City Kot Adu, District Muzzaffargarh and the appellant-respondents could not produce any document to the effect that the land which was left in Pakistan was comprised in any other village. The entry in the Jamabandi for the year 1967-68 (P.9) further show that Himti Bai d/o Asa Nand son of Gobind Ram son of Mansa Ram were the owners in equal shares which was based on the U.O. Dated 20.7.1964. The afore-mentioned Jamabandi has never been challenged by the appellant-respondents. The learned Single Judge placed firm reliance on the Jamabandi of the year 1946-47 and concluded the issue as under : "The petitioners have made categoric reference to the jamabandi for the year 1946-47, copy annexure P.7 in sub para Nos. (vi),(xx), (xxv i) and (xxx) of para 13 of the petition, the specific averments have not been denied but the plea set up is that the U.O. was never brought before any officer for more than 25 years, therefore, the document is not sustainable. A bland denial has been made to paras (xx) and (xxi) by stating that the name of the petiti0ners father Sh. Tula Ram mentioned in the copy of the jamabandi as co owner with Sh.Gobind Ram is not tenable in the eyes of law. Further, learned Financial Commissioner (Revenue) has endorsed the finding of Chief Settlement Commissioner. A bland denial has been made to paras (xx) and (xxi) by stating that the name of the petiti0ners father Sh. Tula Ram mentioned in the copy of the jamabandi as co owner with Sh.Gobind Ram is not tenable in the eyes of law. Further, learned Financial Commissioner (Revenue) has endorsed the finding of Chief Settlement Commissioner. In reply to para (xxx) it has been submitted that the petitioners could approach the competent authority for allotment of land of their share immediately after migration from Pakistan or at the most before 31.12.1963 as required under Rule 67A of the Rules. It is obvious that there is no emphatic denial of the contents of the copy of the jamabandi for the year 1946-47 (annexure P.7) placed on the record. This fact has not been noticed by the learned Financial Commissioner nor by the concerned authorities. The claim form, which was submitted by Gobind Ram, pertains to the land which was comprised in the village to which the jamabandi belongs to. It is obvious that the claim was satisfied commensurate to the land belonging to the persons mentioned in the jamabandi. It is a separate matter t hat claim form is shown to have been signed only by Gobind Ram. This shall not take away the right of Tula Ram and his successors (the petitioners). Therefore, the petitioners have rightfully claimed half share in the land/property allotted against the claim form submitted by Gobind Ram." 5. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, we are of the considered view that the findings of the learned Single Judge that the claim was satisfied commensurate to the land belonging to the persons mentioned in the Jamabandi of the year 1946-47 (P.7) are unexceptionable. On our repeated queries, Mr. Akshay Bhan, learned counsel for the appellant-respondent could not point out that Gobind Ram had been allotted only half share jointly owned land measuring 5 standard acres and units which was left by him alongwith his brother Tula Ram in Pakistan as per Jamabandi of the year 1946-47 of village Thati/69/Issan Alia Tehsil Kot Adui, District Mujjaffargarh. He has also not been able to show that infact both the brothers owned land much more than their entitlement as worked out by the respondent department to be 5 standard acres and units. He has also not been able to show that infact both the brothers owned land much more than their entitlement as worked out by the respondent department to be 5 standard acres and units. The only argument raised by the learned counsel is that Tula Ram who is predecessor in interest of the petitioner-respondents did not ever apply for allotment of land which was his duty under Rule 67A of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Rules.1955 6. On the other hand learned counsel for the petitioner respondents have argued that after the partition, Gobind Ram had inadvertently signed the application for allotment of land to him in lieu of the whole land left by him and his brother Tula Ram in Pakistan. 7. It is not unusual that application for allotment is made only by one of the co-owners especially when they are brothers. The learned Single Judge has fathomed the basic error committed in allotment of the land. There is nothing on the record to show that both the brothers were entitled to allotment of more than 5 standard acres and 1/4 units of land. Therefore, we are satisfied that the learned Single Judge has not committed any error of law or fact which may warrant interference of this Court. The appeal is without any merit and the same is accordingly dismissed.