Research › Search › Judgment

J&K High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 326 (JK)

Bimla Sharma v. Gian Chand

2017-07-14

RAMESH KUMAR WATTAL

body2017
JUDGMENT : Ramesh Kumar Wattal, Member J. 1. This order shall dispose of the four revision petitions, one against the dismissal of Revision petition against the order of cancellation of the allotment of 3 kanals and 16 marlas of the petitioner, 2nd Revision petition filed by the respondent against the order of dismissal of appeal filed by the respondent for cancellation of mutations under section 3-A of Agrarian Reforms Act with regard to 3 kanals and 16 marlas of the petitioner and another revision petition filed by the petitioner challenging the attestation of mutation of 3A of the respondent and another contempt Application titled Banti Kumar v. Satish, Bimla Devi & Ors. filed by the respondent against the petitioner on 17-3-2016 with regard to the alleged construction raised by him during the pendency of revision petition and operation of stay thereby violation of the status stay order. Since all the revision petitions are inter connected and the final Revisional authority in all the cases is the same i.e. J & K Special Tribunal as such the all the Revision petitions are being disposed of by the following common/composite order. 2. For the purpose of convenience parties in the first revision file as mentioned therein, Bansilal and his successors are referred to as the petitioner/petitioners and Gian Chand and his successors are referred to herein below as the respondent/respondents while disposing of the controversy in all the four petitions. 3. The petitioners in the instant case have submitted as under:- 1. That the order of custodian General dismissing their revision petition against the order of cancellation of allotment of the petitioner Bansilal is not in accordance with the provisions of law and the Court below has wrongly interpreted that the petitioner cannot take any such arguments which has not taken place in the lower court and has not returned any interpreted finding of the case. 2. That the lower Court has misinterpreted regarding the appeal case of Section 3-A of Agr. Ref. Act which is pending in the Court as the petitioner has already become the owner of the land and the mutation has also been attested u/s. Section 3-A of Agr. Ref. Act in his favor and as such lower court has no jurisdiction to pass any such order. 3. Ref. Act which is pending in the Court as the petitioner has already become the owner of the land and the mutation has also been attested u/s. Section 3-A of Agr. Ref. Act in his favor and as such lower court has no jurisdiction to pass any such order. 3. That the land allotted to the petitioner in the year 1974 was measuring 2 kanals and in the year 1980 measuring 1 kanal and 16 marlas. 4. That the said allotment has not been cancelled and the same was challenged but the order of allotment was upheld and the lower Court has no jurisdiction to sit over the order passed by superior Court but these acts have been ignored. 5. The petitioners was in deficiency of the land more than 15 kanals and entitled for completion of deficiency of land being refugee allottee. 6. The Court below in fact seems to be influenced by the arguments of the respondents counsel regarding selling of land and as such there is nothing on record for the lower court to return such finding which is not based on facts. 7. That the application moved by the respondent after a period of eight years and thus there is not any provision for restoration of the land to the respondent unless the original allotment of the petitioner is remained intact and upheld but all these facts have not been considered by the lower Court. 8. The respondent has no locus standi to file revision as he is already having more land than the prescribed scale. The respondent has already relinquished his right from the said land as such, all these facts have not been appreciated by the lower court. 9. The order impugned is against the law and facts of the case and as such deserves to be set aside. 10. That the order impugned has been passed in utter disregard of the provisions of law and the Officer below has exceeded his jurisdiction while passing such order. 11. That the respondent has no locus standi to file any such revision petition as he has land more than the prescribed scale. 12. The petitioner is a refugee and mutation u/s. 3-A of Agr. Ref. Act has already been attested in favour of the petitioner and the same is still intact and the lower court has mis-interpreted the mutation under Section 3-A of Agr. Ref. 12. The petitioner is a refugee and mutation u/s. 3-A of Agr. Ref. Act has already been attested in favour of the petitioner and the same is still intact and the lower court has mis-interpreted the mutation under Section 3-A of Agr. Ref. Act has already been set aside but in fact the officer below while mentioning the mutation Nos. 13 dated 1.7.1991 is of an earlier order and after mutation Section 3-A of Agr. Ref. Act has been attested and the same is pending in the Court of Jt. Agr. Reform Commissioner Jammu. 13. That the lower Court has ignored the vital point of law as the matter has already been thrashed out up to the Court of Dy. Custodian regarding unauthorized possession of the respondent from where he was evicted earlier and against the said order no appeal of revision has ever been filed and then the lower Court has no jurisdiction to sit over the order passed by the superior officer. 14. That the petitioner is a refugee having been admitted by the lower court and is an under scale person having no land in his name nor in his possession and the petitioner is holding separate family from last more than 50 years and has never resided or been included in the family of his father or mother. There is no land in the name of the petitioner either at village R.S. Pura or any other village other than the land under dispute. 15. That the petitioner has already raised construction of a residential house comprising of 8 rooms and has a family strength of more than 10 members. 16. That there is no proof that the petitioner has any land more than the prescribed scale, the order has been passed merely on conjectures apart from any record available on the file. 17. That the petitioner has also attached all copies of chowkidari showing separate living and holding separate family which are already on record, which has not been given any consideration and thus impugned order is liable to be set aside. 18. That the order has been passed without application of judicial mind and not justifiable under any provisions of law and has been passed in a very haphazard manner to benefit the respondent for which he is not entitled. 19. That the matter has already been seized by higher court. 18. That the order has been passed without application of judicial mind and not justifiable under any provisions of law and has been passed in a very haphazard manner to benefit the respondent for which he is not entitled. 19. That the matter has already been seized by higher court. Thus the order passed by the Custodian is not maintainable for which he should have stayed his hands till the matter is adjudicated. 20. In the end it is prayed that order passed by the Custodian dated 21.5.1997 whereby he has upheld the order of the Custodian with regard to the land comprising Kh. No. 26 measuring 3 kanal and 16 marlas situated at village Bedkha Tehsil and District Rajouri may be set aside. Another Revision petition 21. Petitioners case is that he is an allottee of land measuring 3 kanals 16 marlas covered under kh. No. 26-min of village Bedkah and has been declared as occupancy tenant in respect thereof under section 3-A of the Agrarian Reforms Act, 1976. 22. That there are two cases sub-judices in this Hon'ble Court Tribunal between the same parties which are fixed for hearing on 17.8.2000. One case being revision preferred by the petitioner against the order of Custodian General J & K Jammu dated 21.5.1997 whereby he has upheld the order of Custodian dated 16.11.1995 cancelling the allotment of the petitioner. Second case is a revision filed by the respondent against the order dated 30.12.1997 of Addl. Deputy Commissioner With the powers; of Commr. Agr. Reforms Rajouri dated 10.4.1992 passed on mutation No. 13 in pursuance of remand order conferring the occupancy lights on the petitioner has been upheld. 23. That the respondent has been disputing the allotment of land held by the petitioner under the garb of the order passed on mutation No. 14 (impugned) in this revision petition which is totally illegal and unwarranted has been trying to get undue advantage thereof and to get the petitioner evicted from the land in question. 24. That the petitioner had been prosecuting the case with due diligence and was believing in good faith that the entire dispute between the parties regarding allotment may be set at rest while finally disposing the case by the tribunal. 24. That the petitioner had been prosecuting the case with due diligence and was believing in good faith that the entire dispute between the parties regarding allotment may be set at rest while finally disposing the case by the tribunal. It was a couple of days back that the petitioner discussed this issue with his counsel who after going through the case advised that in case of challenging the order there must be a separate case. The petitioner accordingly applied for copy of the order dated 7.7.2000 but no copy of part sarkar was issued allegedly not being traceable in the Tehsil Officer. Resultantly a copy of the part patwar of mutation No. 143 was issued to the petition on 17.7.2000. 25. That the order of the Tehsildar Rajouri impugned in this revision petition is illegal uncalled for and is liable to be set aside among others on the following grounds:- i. That the order under revision is illegal as the status of the respondent of being as displaced person is doubtful and his entitlement of land as rural family is still undecided. Therefore the respondent was not entitled to be benefitted u/s. 3-A of the Agr. Reforms Act, 1976. ii. That the land involved in the impugned order has neither been allotted to the respondent nor it has remained under his personal cultivation during or after kharif 1971 and an entry in khasra girdawari made in Rabi-1974 with reference to the so called order of the year 2010 is neither correct nor genuine as no such order is proved to have been made in 2010 even revenue record prior to 1974 nowhere speaks about this order. iii. The respondent does not fulfill the conditions as laid down in the Act of 1976. iv. That non existence of parat sarkar again makes the matter doubtful and the petitioner is not in a position to see the reasons on which the impugned order has been passed. v. The order has been passed at the back the petitioner. 26. iii. The respondent does not fulfill the conditions as laid down in the Act of 1976. iv. That non existence of parat sarkar again makes the matter doubtful and the petitioner is not in a position to see the reasons on which the impugned order has been passed. v. The order has been passed at the back the petitioner. 26. That the order pertains to Evacuee land and this Tribunal is within its power conferred u/s. 21(4) of the Act of 1976 to call for the record of the case and determine the legality or otherwise of the order as submitted in para above the revisional powers of this Tribunal are unaltered and record of any case can be called for at any time when the illegality comes to the notice. 27. In view of the above submissions and those as will be made at the time of the arguments and this Tribunal be pleased to call for the mutation parat sarkar and other record connected herewith and set aside the order under revision. Another 2nd Revision Petition 4. The Petitioner, has filed this Revision Petition on the grounds that Addl. Dy. Commissioner Rajouri with the powers of Commissioner Agrarian Reforms vide order dated 30.12.1997 while deciding the remand case in respect of mutation No. 28 of village Badkha up held the order of Tehsildar dated 10.4.1992 in respect of Kh. No. 26 land measuring 3 kanals 16 marlas whereby the respondent was conferred the occupancy rights under section 3-A of the Agrarian Reforms Act 1976. The impugned order is against law and without jurisdiction and as such is not maintainable. Its validity is challenged among other things on the following grounds:- 1. That the impugned land is an evacuee land under litigation between the parties since long. 2. The impugned land has been deleted vide order 16.11.95 which has been confirmed by the Custodian General vide his order 21.5.1997 on the revision petition filed by the respondent. The custodian has observed that that respondents illegally occupied the land of the petitioner and got the same allotted in his favour for which he is not entitled as he being a family member of her mother a displaced person. 3. In view of the such situation the respondent has no right or entitled to be declared as occupancy tenant of the; impugned land. 3. In view of the such situation the respondent has no right or entitled to be declared as occupancy tenant of the; impugned land. The court below has exceed his jurisdiction in passing the impugned order which is nullity in the eye of law. 4. That the order of the Custodian General dated 21.5.1997 has been challenged by the respondent before Tribunal which is sub-judice there. The petitioners counsel argued that the impugned land is subject of revision before the special Tribunal Jammu and no further orders can be passed for the land which has been reserved by the evacuee property department till further enquiry by the competent Officer but no attention was paid by the Court below to this legal aspect of the case. 5. The sub-ordinate Court is not competent to pass order under any other provision of law when stay too was issued by the Special Tribunal. 6. That the petitioner has not executed any affidavit/agreement on 26.9.1997 in favour of the respondent in respect of the disputed land. 7. The respondent is not entitled to any right under the Agr. Ref. Act, 1976 for the impugned land which the Court below has not appreciated while passing the impugned order. 8. The revision petition involves question of law and is maintainable in the Tribunal. 5. It is prayed that the impugned order dated 30.12.1992 and order dated 15.4.1992 passed on mutation No. 28 passed by the ADC with powers of Agr. Commissioner and Tehsildar Rajouri respectively may kindly be set aside by accepting the revision petition. 6. I have gone through the memoranda of all the revision petitions, the records of the cases in question, the written submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, have heard their arguments and have also gone through the law on the subject. 7. For the purpose of convenience as already stated Bansi Lal and his successors are referred to herein below as the petitioner/petitioners and Gian Chand and his successors. 8. This case has a long history originating from 70's. 9. 7. For the purpose of convenience as already stated Bansi Lal and his successors are referred to herein below as the petitioner/petitioners and Gian Chand and his successors. 8. This case has a long history originating from 70's. 9. Facts leading to the present case are that; petitioner Bansi Lal belonged to a DP family which migrated to this part of J & K who was registered as one of the members of the family of his mother at R.S. Pura Jammu whose family was entitled to allotment of 46 kanals of Abi and 32 kanals of Khuskhi but as per the petitioners version their land was stated to be deficient. 10. He went in search of employment to Rajouri intending to settle at Rajouri where he was allotted 2 kanals of land by surveyor by way of allotment in the year 1974. Subsequently he had to construct a house and occupied near about one kanals and 16 marlas of land which was also allotted to him and in this way he became an owner in possession of the land measuring 3 kanals 16 marlas, land in dispute. 11. Respondent Gian Chand claiming his rights in the said land challenged the allotment on the ground that the petitioner was already allotted land for his family and he could under no circumstances be conferred with the rights as a double allottee by way of allotment of 3k 16M out of which 2 kanals were allotted to him earlier and 1-K 16 M thereafter. 12. Gian Chand predecessor in interest of the respondents claims that he was the allottee of the land under kh. No. 9 old and 26 new and after the land was allotted to him the same was taken by the army and when army released the land and when the respondent was sick confined to bed, the petitioner occupied first 2 kanals of his allotted land and subsequently forcibly occupied his one k 16 M and he was allotted the same illegally as the land belonged to him and petitioner could not be allotted any more land that too from his share, he being already an allottee with his family was allotted land at R.S. Pura. 13. It has been urged by the petitioner that respondent surrendered his rights with respect to 9 marlas in favour of the petitioner Bansi lal in consideration of Rs. 13. It has been urged by the petitioner that respondent surrendered his rights with respect to 9 marlas in favour of the petitioner Bansi lal in consideration of Rs. 350/- where after compromise took place. 14. On 16.11.95 the Custodian passed the order that petitioner was not entitled to make up the deficiency from the land in question and he was a double allottee. 15. His petition for revision wherein it was observed that the petitioner was not entitled to allotment of land being members of his mother's family was dismissed. The Custodian Jammu conducted thorough probe in the matter remanded case to Dy. Custodian to enquire whether petitioner is entitled to take back the possession. 16. The parties are at daggers drawn on the allotment of this land who have fought various cases against each other to get the land. 17. The mutations u/No. 13 of kh. No. 26 measuring 3K-16M has been attested in favour of Bansi Lal against which Gian Chand filed appeal but Court of Joint Agrarian Reforms Commissioner accepting appeal remanded case to Tehsildar Rajouri who after conducting enquiry attested the mutation again in favour of Bansi Lal and after denovo enquiry as per mutation No. 28 on 15.4.1991 against which appeal was filed by him which was dismissed and against the order of dismissal of appeal Revision has been filed which is also pending disposal before this Court and prayer is made that order be set aside, land be restored to him or if otherwise ordered the land be leased out as per provision of SRO 149 as ordered by the Court below. 18. The order of Custodian Jammu cancelling allotment of the petitioner was upheld as per order dated 21.5.1997. 19. Chronological events in detail with respect to the litigation between the parties with their assertions and counter assertions is given as under. 20. As per the order dated 16-6-75 on the application of the respondent the then Deputy Commissioner additional Custodian Rajouri has observed that from the perusal of material on record it is shown that Gian Chand had been receiving the grant with respect to 23 kanals and 16 marlas out of 24 kanals and 10 marlas under Khasra number 26 min which had been taken by the army under Land acquisition and requisition Act. 21. 21. This land had been acquired by the army in the year 1956 and 14 marlas deficiency of Gian chand was ordered to be fulfilled from 2 kanals of land which had been allotted to Bansi Lal and separate Shajra Khasa was ordered to be prepared in this behalf so that no future dispute between the parties arises. 22. The petitioner is not shown to have challenged the allotment of this land to Gian Chand from the year 1974 till 2003 almost 29 years. 23. As argued Mutation number 14 with respect to 4 kanals and 14 marlas under section 3A of Agrarian Reforms Act was attested in favour of the respondent and Tehsildar Rajouri had ordered the correction of 4 kanals and 4 marlas of the land in army in his favour on 20-11-78. Correction of the record was done on 20-11-78. 24. Mutation was attested on 16-3-83. It has been also contended by the petitioner that though mutation number 9 was attested in favour of respondent Gian Chand but he was never in possession of the land since 1975 and the respondent had taken possession of the land 20-11-78. 25. The entry with respect to 2 kanals under Khasra No. 26 has been done in the year 1971 and the entries are verified in accordance with the rules of Agrarian Reforms Act, 1972. 26. Gian Chand claims to be the allottee from Bikrami 22-11-2010 corresponding to the relevant date of the year 1954 AD. 27. The endorsement regarding the entry is shown in the year 1974. His entry with respect to 8 marlas of kotha is from the year 1977. 28. Agreement between Gian Chand and Bansi Lal has been effected on 26-9-75 which was with respect to 9 marlas of land with Bansi Lal. 29. On 20-8-77 the application of Gian Chand for demarcation is shown to have been dismissed by the tehsildar. 30. On 30-1-78 Tehsildar also dismissed the application for restoration of possession of the respondent. 31. On 1-12-75 Gian Chand was permitted to raise the construction on 9 marlas of land. 32. 29. On 20-8-77 the application of Gian Chand for demarcation is shown to have been dismissed by the tehsildar. 30. On 30-1-78 Tehsildar also dismissed the application for restoration of possession of the respondent. 31. On 1-12-75 Gian Chand was permitted to raise the construction on 9 marlas of land. 32. Deputy Commissioner Additional Custodian on 3-1-78 had directed to ascertain as to in which Survey number 9 marlas of land fall and in case it is shown that the same are located in the survey number belonging to the respondent then he should be permitted to raise the construction and the case was remanded. 33. On 7-1-78 the parties were directed to produce evidence. 34. But the Assistant custodian vide his order dated 8-2-78 permitted the respondent to raise the construction and as per the petitioner the Assistant custodian had posted the matter on 21-2-78 but permission was granted illegally on 8-2-78. 35. This order was passed vide order dated 28-11-78 and it was directed that enquiry be conducted as per the order dated 3-1-78. Then on 8-1-1980 District custodian Rajouri observed that Bansi Lal had been allotted two kanals of land from survey number 26 and the illegal occupants of this survey number were ordered to be evicted which included the respondent also. 36. This order was challenged before Deputy Commissioner Additional Custodian who confirmed the same. 37. Thereafter, the same decision was challenged before the final appellate authority of custodian Department and the revision was dismissed for non-prosecution by his order dated 24-2-82. 38. After the decision dated 24-2-1982, mutation number 13 under section 3 A of Agrarian Reforms Act was attested in favour of petitioner Bansi Lal vide order dated 3-4-1982 with respect to do 3 kanals and 16 Marlas. 39. The same was appealed against by the petitioner and the appellate court remanded the same. 40. On the basis of entry dated 20-11-78 correction of Girdawari mutation with respect to 4 kanals and 4 marlas out of Khasra number 26 as per facts mutation number 9 was attested on 16-2-83 which was not challenged in appeal. 41. As per the remand order dated 10-4-92 the mutation under section 3A was attested on 24-8-94 against which the appeal was dismissed and against which the revision has been filed. 42. As per order dated 30-12-97 mutation number 28 has been upheld. 43. 41. As per the remand order dated 10-4-92 the mutation under section 3A was attested on 24-8-94 against which the appeal was dismissed and against which the revision has been filed. 42. As per order dated 30-12-97 mutation number 28 has been upheld. 43. Gian Chand filed another application for restoration of possession before the custodian who forwarded the same to custodian vide order dated 27-12-90 for want of jurisdiction who gave the decision on 16-11-95. 44. The same was challenged in revision filed before custodian general who vide order dated 21-5-97 upheld the decision of the court below and dismissed the revision against which the petitioner has filed Revision before this court. 45. It be mentioned that as per order of Distinct Custodian dated 8.1.80 on file No. 745/As dated 10.4.1968 received from Addl. Custodian after setting aside order dt. 1.12.77 of Asstt./Custodian fresh enquiry order was passed by Asstt. Custodian on 8.2.1978 against which Bansi Lal went in revision and the file received for denovo enquiry afresh. 46. As per the enquiry conducted the Land under kh. No. 26 was found to be belonging to evacuee Ferozudin Beg out of which part 8K-10M had been given to army. Out of this 2 kanals was allotted to Bansi Lal in 1974. Gian Chand in pursuance of implementation of order of allotment on file SRO-43 of 210 received (Gian Chand gave an affidavit in 1979 and a statement in appeal that he surrendered his rights in favour of Bansilal with respect to the land in question. 47. Then he is said to have again started interference. 48. On 5.2.1982 he moved an application to Asstt. Custodian that Bansi lal should be restrained from constructing shop but he said Rs. 400 have been paid by him to Gian Chand and that the same was not allotted to Gian Chand also. He also produced Misel Haqiat on 1961-62 that had he been allotted in 2010 BK it would have been entered in records. 49. But it has been found that kh. No. 26 old from S. No. 7 and he applied for allotment of kh. No. 9. 50. He also produced documents pertaining to receipt of money of kh No. 44, 4k 10 marlas averring that kh No. 26 is not found to have been allotted to him and Astt. 49. But it has been found that kh. No. 26 old from S. No. 7 and he applied for allotment of kh. No. 9. 50. He also produced documents pertaining to receipt of money of kh No. 44, 4k 10 marlas averring that kh No. 26 is not found to have been allotted to him and Astt. Custodian held the land is being illegally transferred causing loss to Custodian and ordered allotment of 1k 16M to Bansi Lal also directing eviction of land of 8k 4 marlas from Mirza, Shafi Subash, Gian as per order dated 8.1.1980. 51. As per order of Add, Custodian dated 25.1.1980 the order of Distt. Asstt. Custodian was set aside. 52. As per Addl. Custodian respondent was receiving compensation of 23k 16 marlas, 5k 6 marlas belonging to him as allottees. 53. The question, therefore, arises as to who is the genuine allottee of the land and to what extent and keeping in view the facts and subsequent events in the litigation between the parties whether any allotment deserved to be canceled and to what extent in the background of the contentions raised and question of law involved in the Revision petitions. Discussion on question of law, and Conclusion 54. In nutshell the petitioner's case is that he had separate allotment of 2 kanals of land which he was deficient and the same was allotted to him at Rajouri where he went in search of job and for settlement and that he is in possession of land allotted to him from 1971. That subsequently he occupied 1k-16 marlas which was also allotted in his favour where as the respondent Gian Chand had nothing to do with the land in question which was in his possession and assuming that the respondent had any right in the land he surrendered his rights in consideration of Rs. 400 in favour of the petitioner Bansi Lal as per the agreement entered into between the parties which has attained finality under law over which construction stands also raised by him. He has also submitted that occupancy rights under section 3A of Agrarian Reforms Act have been conferred upon him over the land the question and the respondent has neither been in possession nor is he an actual allottee of the land in which mention of allotment were made only in 1974. 55. He has also submitted that occupancy rights under section 3A of Agrarian Reforms Act have been conferred upon him over the land the question and the respondent has neither been in possession nor is he an actual allottee of the land in which mention of allotment were made only in 1974. 55. The respondent's case on the other hand is that he is the allottee of land of 29 kanals 2 marlas in Bikrami 2010 corresponding the year 1954 and the land was taken over by the Army under Acquisition and Requisition Act and subsequently when the same was released by Military, the petitioner illegally occupied the same and managed allotment of first 2 kanals and thereafter 1 kanal 16 marlas of land in his favour by way of double allotment concealing that he was earlier allotted the land at R.S. Pura with the family in which he was also a member and under no circumstances he could be conferred with his allotment of 3 kanal 16 marlas which belonged to the respondent. 56. The revision petition filed by the petitioner raises the following points for determination. 1. Whether the revision petition is disposed of by the custodian Vide impugned order was competent/maintainable in view of the fact that the adjudication of the matter in dispute was already concluded from the higher forum (the custodian general) 2. whether the custodian was competent to re-adjudicate the matter already concluded and upheld by the higher court. 3. Subject to the determination of question 1 and 2 above, whether revision petition filed beyond the period prescribed could be entertained/admitted without passing any order regarding the condonation or otherwise. 4. Without prejudice to the legal position as mentioned in questions 1, 2 and 3 above, whether the custodian had, otherwise, jurisdiction to deal with the matter where allotment had already been merged in the occupancy tenancy conferred on late Bansi Lal under section 3A of Agrarian Reforms Act, 1976. 5. Without prejudice to the foregoing, whether the observation of the court regarding deficiency in city and of allotment and cancellation of the allotment are based on the real facts or perverse. 6. Whether late Gian Chand, respondent, having no legal claim over the land in question, had locus standi to challenge the allotment orders made in favour of late Bansi Lal, petitioner. 6. Whether late Gian Chand, respondent, having no legal claim over the land in question, had locus standi to challenge the allotment orders made in favour of late Bansi Lal, petitioner. If the answer to this question is negative, what would be the fate of his revision petition and the mutation No. 14, attested in his favour under section 3-A of Agrarian Reforms Act 1976, in respect of the area of Khasra number 26 min other than the land allotted to Bansi Lal. 7. Whether the order of custodian general passed without application of mind and without looking into the facts and legal issues involved in the matter as referred to herein above, has any legal footing or is perverse, arbitrary and bad in law. 57. First of all, it will be proper the adjudicate upon points No. 4, 5, 6 & 7. 58. The admitted position of the parties is that Bansi Lal was a refugee whose family had been allotted 32 kanals of land at R.S. Pura in which the petitioner Bansi Lal was also a member. 59. The land was allotted to the family as a single family unit and as such none of the other family members could be conferred with the additional allotment of land under ordinary circumstances. Even if a family was deficient of the land allotted in its favour, the deficiency could be made only from the same area, Tehsil District and in absence of land in the respective District then in another district, that too when the claim of the claimant is genuine and bona fide and the fact of earlier allotment to the family unit is brought into the notice of the custodian authorities). 60. The petitioner is not shown to have brought to the notice of the authority concerned i.e. custodian department ever that any land has been allotted to his family unit and the said unit is falling short of the land for that deficiency needs to be fulfilled. 61. There is no legal obstacle in choosing a place for settlement in any other part of the state but all the necessary facts in that event should be brought into the notice of the authority concerned and the same cannot be concealed. In the instant case the concealment has resulted into double allotment which is not permitted under law. 62. There is no legal obstacle in choosing a place for settlement in any other part of the state but all the necessary facts in that event should be brought into the notice of the authority concerned and the same cannot be concealed. In the instant case the concealment has resulted into double allotment which is not permitted under law. 62. The concealment of the facts therefore disentitles the allottee the relief and on this ground the allotment being illegal even if subsequent events of regularization of allotment have taken place the subsequent mutation u/s. 3A Agrarian Reforms Act cannot regularize the allotment which is void ab-initio. 63. The cancellation of allotment of petitioner on these grounds therefore cannot be said to be illegal or erroneous under law and any regularization subsequent to such illegal allotment which is void abintio cannot be said to be authorized. 64. Even if it could be stated that the petitioner was deficient in allotment considering whole land allotted to the family in which he was a member but this deficiency could not be made from the earlier allottee from his share who himself was already having deficiency of the land. 65. Petitioners another contention is that the respondent had no allotment in his favour for which he has also filed the revision for cancellation of his allotment and mutation u/s. 3 A in absence of proper allotment under law in his favour. 66. The contention is not tenable in the eyes of law. The allotment is reflected in revenue record and also fortified by the orders of Deputy Commissioner Additional Custodian Rajouri and the fact that the respondent Gian Chand had been receiving the rent of 23 kanals of land out of the land allotted to him under Kh. No. 26. The allotment of the respondent or his mutation were never challenged by the petitioner almost for 30 years till the filing of revision petition though on an isolated occasion such objection seems to have been put forth by the petitioner before the custodian authorities but the respondents allotment has never come to be challenged for decades together by him. 67. A last ditch attempt is also shown to have been made by the petitioner by taking the plea of the respondent being an urban allotte but this contention is not substantiated from the record and thus proved to be futile. 68. 67. A last ditch attempt is also shown to have been made by the petitioner by taking the plea of the respondent being an urban allotte but this contention is not substantiated from the record and thus proved to be futile. 68. Hence it cannot be said under any circumstances that the respondent had no legal claim over the land allotted to him under Kh. No. 26 with respect to which the mutation under Section 3A Ag. Ref. Act is duly shown to have been attested in his favour and even if part sarkar of the mutation has not been made available, the respondent having taken the compensation/rent for 23 kanals as per the order of DC Rajouri and the allotment having been subsequently duly reflected in the records it does not mean that there is no proper allotment in favour of the respondent and thus the revision petition against this order is shown to be without any merit and the prayer for setting it aside is hereby declined. 69. So for as the rights of occupancy under S. 3-A of Agrarian reforms are concerned the mutation conferring such rights of occupancy under S. 3-A can be attested only after fulfilling the conditions of allotment. A person who is in unauthorized possession cannot be conferred with the right of allotment or attestation of mutation under S. 3-A Agrarian Reforms Act. This will not legalise the unauthorized possession of the occupant which is in dispute from the very inception of the litigation. 70. Mere attestation of mutation of land in unauthorized possession will not lead to meger of rights of original allotees to subsequent occupier and doctrine of merger of conferment of such occupancy rights which are unauthorized from the very inception can have no application in the case and the questions of law as discussed above are answered accordingly. 71. As regards the finality of the order of custodian, the revisional court is not debarred from looking to the propriety of the order in Revisionary jurisdiction even if final in case if the same is shown to be perverse. 72. So for as the order of custodian dated 18-1-80 is concerned, the same suffers from perversity in the finding of fact which does not stand the test of reasonableness and is unsustainable in the eyes of law. 73. 72. So for as the order of custodian dated 18-1-80 is concerned, the same suffers from perversity in the finding of fact which does not stand the test of reasonableness and is unsustainable in the eyes of law. 73. If the contention of the petitioners is accepted then the wrong committed shall be perpetuated which shall not be proper for this court to permit the same to be perpetuated. 74. Thus, the same having been agitated though indirectly at the instance of the respondent in the ancillary related matter but rightly so, the finality of the illegal order cannot come in the way of the court to set aside the same if the same is not justified under the circumstances after the same has come into the notice of the custodian authorities. The question 1 to 3 are also therefore answered accordingly. 75. Now the questions arise regarding the effect of subsequent events on the rights of the parties. 76. It may be mentioned that the petitioner is a displaced person of 1971 who went to Rajouri in search of job or for settlement. He has been conferred with the allotment rights of 2 kanals of land in first instance in the year 1971 as, reflected in Girdawari records which he is in possession but the same is shown to have been allotted from the share of the land belonging to the respondent. 77. The litigation has stated at the time of the initial allotment of land in his favour as per the findings of Custodian department including Deputy Commissioner Rajouri the respondent Gian Chand who is stated to have been the allottee of Khasra No. 26 of 24 Kanlas is also found to be deficient of 14 marlas which has been ordered to be made from the land allotted to the petitioner. 78. In subsequent proceedings before Assistant Custodian the respondent Gian Chand is shown to have entered into compromise agreement with the petitioner waving his claim in consideration of Rs. 350. 79. Essentially the consideration is sum shown to have been received for 9 marlas only that is why the respondent has been harping before the custodian authorities for restoration of possession of his remaining land from the petitioner. This aspect has also been indirectly admitted by the petitioner as is evident from the ground projected by him in one of the above revision petitions filed by him. This aspect has also been indirectly admitted by the petitioner as is evident from the ground projected by him in one of the above revision petitions filed by him. 80. So to hold otherwise that surrender of whole 3 kanals and 16 marlas had been for Rs. 350 only will be arbitrary and thus unjustified. 81. So far as subsequent acts of occupation of 1 kanal and 16 marlas are concerned the same are shown to have been made illegally with respect to which no estoppel could be taken against the respondent from challenging his illegal allotment. 82. Thus initial allotment 2 kanals in view of the petitioners being in occupation and allotment being as a refugee could not be cancelled but the Respondent merits to be paid the compensation/rent at the then prevalent market rate with consequential benefits for these 2 kanals short of 9 marlas of land for which surrender of rights in consideration of Rs. 350/400 is shown to have been made voluntarily by the respondent as per the agreement which is shown to be against the statute. 83. As regards subsequent 1 kanal 16 marlas the occupation is shown to be illegal forcible and unauthorized and as held herein above it cannot be said by any stretch of imagination that Rs. 400 had been received by the respondent for whole of 3 kanal and 16 marlas. 84. Thus to say that surrender or compromise had been made for whole 3 kanals 16 marlas as observed above for a mere consideration of Rs. 300 or 350 only is construed to be arbitrary and perverse and thus compromise cannot operate as estoppel against the respondent in whose favour initial allotment of 2 kanals short of (14 marlas the deficiency of which was ordered to be made by Deputy commissioner Rajouri as per his order dated 16-11-1975 Minus 9 marlas surrendered by the respondent in lieu of Rs. 350 = 5 marlas left) i.e. 1 Kanal and 15 marlas is hereby maintained and the petitioner cannot be evicted from the same for which compensation needs to be paid to the original allottee the respondent and subsequent allotment of 1 k 16 marlas which is shown to have been forcibly occupied for which allotment has wrongly been made in his favour is hereby cancelled and the land measuring 2 kanals and 1 marlas is ordered to be restored to the respondent. 85. The order is necessitated in view of almost about five decades of litigation and 27 decisions of various Agrarian and custodian authorities at different stages on the subject even if the respondents counsel has submitted that all other decisions need not be taken note of and ignored as according to him what is not referred or considered by the Agrarian Reforms commissioner and custodian General should also not be considered or discussed or given any weight age by the appellate courts below. 86. But the decisions being relevant on the subject matter of the dispute, the effect of these decisions and the desirability of passing of appropriate order justified under the circumstances, in view of the characteristic facts and circumstances and long checkered history of the case, with a view to put an end the litigation cannot be overlooked. 87. Thus, the above order is directed to be implemented and reflected in the mutation orders of allotment of land and conferment of rights under section 3A of the provisions of Agrarian Reforms Act in favour of the successors in interest of the parties accordingly by all the concerned. 88. In view of final adjudication of the controversy no order is required to be passed in contempt petition which also stands disposed of as per the aforesaid order. File be consigned to records after due completion. Record be sent back.