(POLICY AND LEGAL BRANCH)
The matter regarding allotment of land alleged to have been left by Hukam Singh in villages Chak Abbas and Chak Bagwala Tehsil Rahimyarkhan (Bahawalpur State) which was buried dead on the rejection of the claim of Hukam Singh vide order dated 4.6.1959 of the Managing Officer was revived after 25 years by one Inder Singh claiming to be General Power of Attorney of Kartar Singh son of Hukam Singh. In his application filed on 13.9.1984 to the Deputy Secretary, Rehabilitation he alleged that Hukam Singh son of Sher Singh father of Kartar Singh had left agricultural land measuring 70 Acres 2 kanals in the said villages. In that application he further stated that Hukam Singh had applied for allotment of land situated in Bahawalpur State on 25.2.1952 wherein an ex-parte order was passed on 11.8.1952 by R.C.Rehabilitation Department, Jalandhar and he made another application on 25.1.1954 wherein an ex-parte order was passed on 4.6.1959 by the A.R.III, Rehabilitation Department, Jalandhar. The said application dated 13.9.84 was processed by the Managing Officer but the same was dismissed vide order dated 8.10.1984 on the ground that his request for allotment had since been rejected by the Managing Officer on 4.6.1959 on the ground that the petitioner or his father had never filed any claim for allotment of land. An appeal was carried to the Settlement Commissioner against the order dated 8.10.1984 of the Managing Officer, who remanded the case vide his order dated 31.10.1984 for fresh decision observing that the petitioner had made applications for allotment of land before 31.12.63 as required under rule 67-A of Displaced Persons (C & R) Rules, 1955. On remand the Managing Officer again rejected the claim of petitioner vide his order dated 25.3.1985 on the ground that the petitioner had failed to lodge his claim for allotment before the appointed date i.e. 31.12.1963, despite the fact that there was ample time and opportunity for doing so during the period from 1959 to 1963. The petitioner challenged this order dated 25.3.1985 in appeal u/s 22 of the Displaced Persons (C & R) Act, 1954 before the Settlement Commissioner, who passed order dated 9.12.1985 thereby quashing the order dated 25.3.1985 of Managing Officer and remanding the case for fresh decision.
2.
The case of the petitioner was considered at length by the Managing
Officer Rehabilitation Department, Punjab, Chandigarh but he dismissed his
petition vide order dated 19.8.1986. He
took note of the fact that the order dated 4.6.1959 rejecting the application
of the petitioner had been passed on the ground that Hukam Singh or the
petitioner had never filed ‘mutalba’ claim, in the absence of which no
allotment could be made and the intimation of that order had been sent to the
petitioner. He also observed that even
if no intimation regarding the rejection of his application by Managing Officer
on 4.6.1959 was sent, it was incumbent of the petitioner to file aforesaid application
before 31.12.1963 under rule 67-A of the Displaced Persons (C & R) Rules,
1955 in response to the Press Note issued in Sept.,1963 which was not done by
him. He further took cognizance of the
fact that after the passing of the order dated 4.6.1959, the petitioner
remained silent for about 25 years and applied for allotment only on 13.9.1984
without relying upon any verified claim.
3.
The order dated 19.8.1986 of the Managing Officer was challenged in
appeal u/s 22 of the Displaced Persons (C & R) Act before the Settlement
Commissioner, Rehabilitation Department, Punjab, Chandigarh by Kartar Singh,
petitioner. The Settlement Commissioner
accepted the appeal vide his order dated 30.3.1987 and while quashing the order
dated 19.8.1986 he remanded the case to the Tehsildar-Sales-cum-Managing
Officer, Rehabilitation Department with the direction that the matter should be
examined afresh to determine the eligibility of the petitioner for the
allotment of land to him.
4.
In pursuance of this order of remand the matter was dealt with by
Sh.S.M.Sharma, Tehsildar (Hqrs.)-cum-Managing Officer and he passed order dated
14.12.1988. Kartar Singh was declared
eligible for the allotment of land measuring 23 Std. Acres 12½ units of land in
lieu of land abandoned by him in Chak Abbas in Bahawalpur State. He directed that necessary Goshwara be
prepared and sent as per option of the claimant after obtaining clearance from
the Government.
Subsequently clearance was given at
Govt. level vide No.P-IV(927)97/1270 dated 9.9.1997. This clearance was based on the office noting dated
3.9.1997. A perusal of office noting
reveals that it was wrongly projected therein that the Managing Officer had passed
the order dated 14.12.1988, thereby adjudging the entitlement of Kartar Singh
to land measuring 23 Std. Acres 12½ units, after getting the
inspection/examination of the relevant records. The office further submitted that the applications dated
25.2.1952, 25.1.1954 and 20.9.1955 had been made before the crucial date, i.e.,
31.12.1963 as provided in rule 67-A of the Displaced Persons (C & R) Rules,
1955, and the order dated 14.12.1988 was passed by Tehsildar
(Hqrs)-cum-Managing Officer in compliance with the order dated 30.3.1987 of the
Settlement Commissioner and consequently the Managing Officer had correctly
accepted the claim for allotment of land measuring 23-12½ Std. Acres to Hukam
Singh through Kartar Singh.
5.
In my opinion the clearance which was given on the misleading note of
the office suffers from numerous glaring infirmities which cannot be ignored
and the applications mentioned in the order dated 19.8.1999 of the Hon’ble High
Court of Punjab & Haryana Annexure P-4 and P-5 to the Writ Petition No.
4012 of 1955 deserve to be rejected.
Initially in 1952, Hukam Singh is shown to have claimed allotment of land in lieu of land alleged to have been left in village Chak Abbas, tehsil & district Rahimyarkhan. He is shown to have become a resident of Bega, Tehsil Sonepat and claimed that as he originally belonged to Shehar Sultan, district Muzafargarh, Tehsil Alipur he had a right for allotment of land in tehsil Sonepat according to allocation of tehsil Alipur district Muzafarnagar. However, when Kartar Singhd applied through his General Power of Attorney Holder Inder Singh on 13.9.84, he claimed that Hukam Singh had left land in Mauza Chak Abbas and Chak Bagowala. The Managing Officer does not discuss in his order the reason for sudden change in the wishes of the claimant in relinquishing his preference for Haryana and opting for Punjab at this belated stage. Incidentally in Haryana Hukam Singh though contacted through the office of the Deputy Commissioner at the instance of Rehabilitation Department, Jalandhar was not traceable at the address given.
The claim allowed by Managing
Officer vide his order dated 14.12.88 relates to only village Chak Abbas. There is not even an oblique mention
regarding the land in village Chak Bagwala in the said order. The records do not show as to what happened
to the request in respect of the land alleged to have been left in Chak
Bagwala. Neither Kartar Singh pressed
his claim regarding the land alleged to have been left in Chak Bagwala nor did
the Managing Officer make any mention in his order dated 14.12.1988, whereby
the claim regarding the land alleged to have been left in Chak Abbas alone was
accepted.
The order of the Managing Officer
is, lacking in application of mind and constitutes numerous material
irregularities. The Managing Officer
did not bother to verify the genuineness, validity and maintainability of the
claim from any record whatsoever and he erroneously based his decision only on
the “chhant jamabandi” and a few lines statement of Kartar Singh, whom nobody
identified.
In accordance with Govt. policy
prevailing immediately after Partition when lakhs of refugees migrated to
India, the process for allotment started with the registration of ‘mutalba’
claims which were further verified by the Rehabilitation authorities from the
documentary evidence before making the allotment. The applications of Hukam Singh for allotment of land were
repeatedly rejected by different forums as detailed above on the ground that he
had failed to file mutalba claim. At
one stage it is clearly written that Hukam Singh failed to produce any
documentary evidence in his favour whatsoever.
But the persistent rejection of claim of Kartar Singh on the ground that
he had not filed an appropriate claim did not fetch any response from him and
he did not bother to file the desired claim and was contented with filing
simple applications without any supporting material. According to the rules framed under East Punjab Refugee
(Registration of Land Claim) Ordinance, 1948 followed by the East Punjab
Refugee (Registration of Land Claim) Act, 1948 detailed procedure was
prescribed for lodging and verification of the claims. A form known as Parcha Tasdiq was devised for recording the results of
verification. It was inevitably for the
reason that Hukam Singh and his son Kartar Singh who filed applications
simpliciter and not proper claim, failed to satisfy the concerned
Rehabilitation Authorities regarding the genuineness of their land claim; that
their claim was rejected vide order dated 4.6.1959. However, while passing the order dated 14.12.1988, the Managing
Officer did not at all try to satisfy himself regarding the genuineness and
maintainability of the claim as also the credentials and identity of Kartar
Singh.
He never called upon him to
substantiate his claim by document/oral evidence.
Hukam Singh wanted allotment of land
in tehsil Sonepat as he originally belonged to Shahar Sultan and according to
allocation of tehsil Alipur, District Muzafarnagar he had a right for allotment
of land in Tehsil Sonepat. Why that
aspect of the matter was ignored and suddenly after 29 years the claim was
entered in Punjab is a matter which had been left totally untouched and
unanswered by the Managing Officer. An
unverified claim could be acceptable if there was some corroborative evidence
to connect the claimant to the claim.
Here no such connection is established.
In this case such an exercise has not been undertaken by the Managing
Officer nor was there any effort on the part of the claimant to supply any
documents. The various judgements have
been quoted in Managing Officer’s order totally out of context as they relate
to a period when hordes of refugees had freshly migrated from Pakistan in
object and utter misery. It was not the
time to ask questions, it was time for giving them instant relief and for allowing
their claims through summary procedures to alleviate their sufferings somehow.
At that time the number of migrants was o large that the Rehabilitation
authorities had to pass orders in open court in front of large number of
people. There was mass migration in
'‘Kaflas’ with survivors of an entire village settling in Camps and thereafter,
seeking/getting temporary allotment villagewise and there was very little scope
for manipulation. These judgements are
not applicable to the present fact-situation wherein, in peace-time, after more
than 35 years of Partition, a man suddenly comes up on the scene with a simple
application and expects the same treatment in closed-door proceedings which was
allowed immediately after partition when verifications were made in open
gatherings.
It is a matter to note that Kartar
Singh the present applicant was a major at the time of migration as the Power
of Attorney dated 28.8.1984 executed by him in favour of Inder Singh describes
his age as 55 years. Thus his date of
birth works out somewhere in 1929 or 1930.
Apparently he became a major either at the time of partition or
somewhere after. Therefore, had he
exercised due diligence he would have lodged and pursued his claim immediately
after Partition. But neither Hukam
Singh, the original claimant, nor Kartar Singh the present claimant filed any
formal claim during these years and the entire case is based on sketchy and
cryptic applications which are inconsistent in the original request there is no
mention of any land having been left in village Bagwala; the application dated
1952 mentions only claim relating to Chak Abbas Khan, whereas the application
made in 1984 mentions claim relating to Bhagwala also. The discrepancy and constant shift in the
stand in driblets eludes and explanation.
Interestingly, none of these applicants states that original claimant
Hukam Singh had received any claim in village Kauli, Tehsil Patiala yet the
Settlement Commissioner while remanding the case on 3.3.1987 suddenly mentioned
in his order that “the Ld. Counsel has further contended that allotment in lieu
of the land abandoned by applicant’s father in village Alipur, tehsil
Muzaffargarh (West Pakistan)has been made in village Kauli, Tehsil and district
Patiala in the name of appellant’s father but his request for allotment of land
in lieu of Bhawalpur State remains unsatisfied.” The entire file relating to
these applications does not record any allotment in village Kauli and
observations of Settlement Commissioner are based on surmises. This is strengthened from the report of
Patwari of village Kauli which states that no ownership entry has been found in
the name of Hukam Singh son of Sher Singh or Kartar Singh son of Hukam Singh. Rather, Hukam Singh son of Sher Singh is
reported to have purchased 3 bighas and 3 biswas of land in village Mohabatpur
on 18.3.1959 which he sold away on 22.6.1977.
It is reported that the village Mohabatpur is contiguous to village
Kauli, but no land has been allotted in village Mohabatpur either.
The Managing Officer in his order
dated 14.12.1988 recorded that Kartar Singh son of Hukam Singh states that he
was the only legal heir of his deceased father. There is no death certificate
of the original claimant on record. The
record shows that the Managing Officer made no enquiries on the subject of
Hukam Singh’s succession nor did he ask for any evidence in corroboration of
Kartar Singh being the only legal heir.
There is an application dated 1995 of one Gobind Ram of Rajpura, who
also claimed to be attorney of Kartar Singh in 1995 and on whose initiative the
file again started moving which states that the two brothers of Kartar Singh
had already been allotted land. All
this was on Govt. record when the case was put up to the officers for clearance
in 1997 but the office did not make any effort to point out this
discrepancy. Thus, the claim of Kartar
Singh was decided without any cogent and convincing evidence.
There is no plausible explanation
from the side of the original claimant as to why he failed to have recourse to
the statutory remedies available under the Displaced Persons(C & R) Act,
1954 and continued to remain in deep slumber for 25 years. Rather the original claimant remained silent
after 1959 by accepting the infirmities afflicting his claim. When he is
reported to have died one Kartar Singh came up claiming to be son of Hukam
Singh the original migrant and pursued his claim as if nothing had happened
in-between. All that Kartar Singh
stated was that orders were not conveyed to him. Why he did not himself make inquiries though he was an adult has
not been explained. It is now expected
that the present claimant Kartar Singh was working with the Consolidation
Department of Haryana as Kanungo and has retired from the service in that State. All the addresses he has given were of Chandigarh and of Haryana and Punjab and
not of distant places. He does not come
out with any plausible explanation to condone the latches spreading over a
period of 25 years. Financial
Commissioner Revenue, Haryana was impleaded in the CWP No.4012 of 1999 but for
some strange reason Kartar Singh did not press his claim against him.
It may be pertinently mentioned that
even the identity of Hukam Singh and Kartar Singh whose applications stood
rejected way back on 4.6.1959 without any further reaction from his side for a
long period of 25 years does not stand unimpeachably established. If Hukam Singh and Kartar Singh were genuine
claimants they must have filed mutalba claim in accordance with the policy of
the Govt. at the very initial stage instead of banking on simple
applications. Yet the alleged Hukam
Singh kept quiet after 1959, and Kartar Singh became active at the age of 55 in
1984 and that too through an attorney Inder Singh who was an XEN posted at Chandigarh. For some strange reason an Inland letter
dated 17.11.1988 was sent to the Govt./Managing Officer informing that the
Power of Attorney given in favour of Inder Singh had been revoked.
In view of the infirmities detailed
above in the order dated 14.12.1988 as detailed above, the said order does
notwithstand the test of close in-depth scrutiny. Therefore, while setting aside the said order, the clearance
already given by the Govt. to the land claim of Kartar Singh is hereby
withdrawn. Consequently the
applications Annexure P-4 and P-5 of the Writ Petition No.4012 of 1999 are
rejected.
However, in order to afford yet
another opportunity to Kartar Singh to establish his claim in the face of these
infirmities, the matter is remanded to Managing Officer, Rehabilitation, who
will take a fresh decision after making a detailed enquiry in light of
observations contained in this order. Sh. Kartar Singh should report to the
Managing Officer on 26.9.2000. A copy
of this order should be sent to him for compliance.
(SHYAMA MANN)
Chandigarh, dated Financial
Commissioner Revenue,
The 13th Sept., 2000 Punjab.