IN
THE COURT OF MRS. SHYAMA MANN, IAS, FINANCIAL COMMISSIONER REVENUE, PUNJAB,
CHANDIGARH.
Misc No. 39 of 1996-97
In
M.R. No. 20 OF 1998-89
1. Gian Singh son of Budh Singh resident of village Tikhowal (Mukerian) Tehsil Dasuya District Hoshiarpur.
2. Sewa Singh
3. Joginder Singh
4. Makhan Singh Sons of Harnam Singh (died)
5. Puran Devi, widow of Harnam Singh (deceased)
6. Sampuran Singh
7. Sardar Singh sons of Santokh Singh (deceased)
8. Payar Kaur, widow of Santokh Singh (deceased)
all residents of village Tikhowal (Mukerian) Tehsil Dasuya District Hoshiarpur.
……Petitioners
Versus
1. Deputy Commissioner-cum-Chief Settlement Commissioner, Hoshiarpur.
2. Settlement Commissioner, Rehabilitation Department, Punjab, Chandigarh
3. Tehsildar, Mahal-cum-Sales, Hoshiarpur.
4. Ajit Singh
5. Dalip Singh
6. Surat Singh sons of Manak Singh
7. Harbhajan Singh (deceased) son of Manak Singh now represented by his legal representatives :-
i) Sarabjit Kaur wd/o Harbhajan Singh
ii) Jaspal Singh
iii) Inderjit Singh minor sons of Harbhajan Singh;
iv) Sandeep Kaur minor daughter of Harbhajan Singh;
through mother & guardian Sarabjit Kaur widow of Harbhajan Singh;
8. Narvinder Singh s/o Gurcharan Singh
9. Surjit Kaur
10. Narinder Kumar s/o Muni Lal
11. Raj Rani w/o Muni Lal
12. Mohinder Singh (deceased) s/o Ganda Singh
now represented by his legal representatives :-
i) Surjit Kaur wd/o Mohinder Singh
ii) Prem Singh s/o Mohinder Singh
iii) Piara Singh s/o of Ganda Singh
13. Kulwant Singh s/o Chain Singh
14. Babu Ram Mangal s/o Diwan Chand
15. H.C. Grover s/o Ram Ditta Mal
16. K.K. Grover s/o Ram Ditta Mal
17. Santosh Grover s/o H.C. Grover
18. Usha Rani w/o K.K. Grover
19. Ashwani Kumar s/o Kuala Krishan
20. Krishan Chand Verma s/o Hans Raj
21. Krishna Wanti w/o Krishan Chand
22. Ishar Dass (deceased) s/o Diwan Chand
now represented by his legal representatives :-
i) Uma Wati sd/o Ishar Dass
ii) Vipin Kumar s/o Ishar Dass
iii) Subhash Chander s/o Ishar Dass
iv) Parveen Kumari d/o Ishar Dass
All residents of village Mukerian, Tehsil Dasuya, District - Hoshiarpur.
…… Respondents
Present : During argument on 25.5.99 |
Sh. G.S. Nagra, Advocate, counsel for the petitioner. Sh. S.S. Katnoria, Advocate, counsel for the respondents. Sh. O.K. Puri, Senior State Counsel for the State Sh. R.K. Joshi, Adv. Counsel for the petitioners. |
ORDER
The facts of this case are that land measuring 44 kanals 5 marlas contained in khasra number 175 of village Tikhowal , Hadbast No .262 Tehsil Dasuya was owned by Moharnmad Hussain son of Abdulla 1/4th share, Noor Moharnmad son of Alahi Baksh 1/4th share and Mohammad Hussain son of Krim Bakhsh 1/2 share . Diwan Chand and Labh Ram sons of sons of Ganga Ram, in equal share, 5 shares and Bhagat Ram, Jagat Ram sons of Charan Dass 10 shares were shown as Malguzars of this land as per entries in jamabandi 1950-51.(vide Fard Badar the 10 shares were corrected to 1 share!). Out of this area, Gian Singh present petitioner claimed rights over 24 kanals 5 marlas of this land as sub-lessee of one Sardar Singh (9K-15m) and Bhagwan Dass(15K-0M). After protracted litigation his claim was upheld by the Chief Settlement Commissioner vide his order dated 7.12.81. The remaining land of khasra No .175 measuring 19 kanals 10 marlas was put to auction by the Managing Officer on 22.7.1982. Gian Singh, present petitioner aggrieved by this sale raised objections under rule 92 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation & Rehabilitation) Rules, 1955 before the Settlement Commissioner, Punjab, Mohali that were rejected by him on 28.11.83 and the sale confirmed. Thereafter Gian Singh filed a revision petition u/s 24 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation & Rehabilitation)Act,1954 before the Chief Settlement Commissioner-cum-Deputy Commissioner, Hoshiarpur who also dismissed the same on 3.11.88. Not satisfied Gian Singh filed a petition u/s 33 of the said Act against the Chief Settlement Commissioner's order dated 3-11-88 before the Financial Commissioner Revenue. This was also dismissed on 31-1-95. Aggrieved by the order of the Financial Commissioner Revenue, the petitioner filed CWP No. 3345 of 1995 and the case was remanded by the Hon'ble High Court with the direction that the matter be decided afresh after taking into consideration Annexure P-1 & P-5 attached to the writ petition.
2. The copy of jamabandi for 1950-51 Annexure P-I attached to the writ petition shows that the land was owned by Moharnmad Hussain son of Abdulla 1/4th share, Noor Mohammad son of Alahi Baksh 1/4th share and Mohammad Hussain son of Karim Bakhsh 1/2 share, Diwan Chand, Labhu Ram sons of Ganga Ram in equal share 5 shares; Bhagat Ram, Jagat Ram sons of Charan Dass in equal share 10 shares, have been shown ‘Malguzaran’. As per Farad Badar the share of Bhagat Ram, Jagat Ram has been corrected to one share instead of 10 shares. In the Column of cultivation Khuda Hussain son of Umrao Alishah 1/2 share; Bashir Hussain, Saghir Hussain, Nazar Hussain sons of Dilawar Hussain in equal shares 1/2 share, have been shown as ‘Marusis', the status of Gian Singh son of Budh Singh is shown only as ‘Ghair-Maurusi’.
The contention of the petitioners is that they had purchased the land in question from malguzars and owners thereof. In support of this contention a registered sale deed dated 3.12.1958 was produced by the petitioner as Annexure P-5 before the High Court. A careful perusal of this document shows that the petitioner had purchased total area of only 7 kanals 5 ½ marlas situated in village Tikhowal for a consideration of Rs.1500/- from Labhu Ram. This represented 1/12th share of Labhu Ram in various khewats totalling 87 kanals 7 marlas, including 19 kanals 0 marlas comprised in khasra No.175, Khewat No.24 (Proportionately 1/12th share in 19 kanals 0 marla works out to 1K-12M and the petitioners’ half share works out to 0K-16M only).
The sale deed is very loosely worded. It states that "the land is self-ownership, malguzari and occupancy rights and is in possession of Gian Singh etc. mortgagees alongwith my self as shown in revenue record”. It goes on to say that “now they will be treated as owners, malguzars and marusis like me". "whatever rights I had in the land those rights have gone to the vendee". Gian Singh, however, admits to having purchased malguzari rights.
4. The next question is as to what is the effect of the purchase of these "rights "on the merits of the case. Under the provisions of Punjab Occupancy Tenants (Vesting of Proprietary Rights) Act, 1952, the rights of owners were extinguished and those who were entered as occupancy tenants became owners of the land. In this case both the owners and the occupancy tenants, were Muslims who left the country on account of partition. Therefore, the disputed land had vested in the Custodian as per legal provisions applicable to such properties. The counsel for the respondents has stated that even in the revenue record the necessary entry was made much before this land was put to auction and the petitioner has deliberately concealed this fact. The belated plea of the petitioner that it was not Custodian property is therefore not tenable.
Coming to the rights of Malguzars, the counsel for the petitioner has not been able to establish that the Malguzaras had a status equivalent to that of owners, or that the Hindu malguzars became owners on the migration of Muslim owners of the land. As per Glossary of Vernacular words appended to Douise's Settlement Manual 'malguzar' is a person responsible for payment of land-revenue only. A detailed reading of Chapters III and VIII of the Settlement Manual brings out the following facts:-
The prime concern of the English in the early part of their rule in Punjab was collection of land revenue. The early Settlements were very rough and ready proceedings. There were no field survey maps, no reliable returns of the cultivated area or of crops grown and no trustworthy records from which the profits of the land-owner could be deduced. The assessment of land revenue was ex-orbitant and the means to collect it very equally harsh. Very often, the land-owners "Tent in arrears. At the same time the land revenue was invariably extracted by the owners from the marusis and the Ghair marusis and this itself was an onerous task. This gave rise to the system of 'malguzars' where the owners resorted to finding out some persons who could collect it from marusis and ghair marusis on their behalf and get some share out of the produce for the services rendered. In Punjab, Muslims were by and large the land owners and the Hindus(Vaish) were persons engaged in business profession and were rich.
These Muslim owners assigned the task of collection to malguzars who were Hindus and were by and large non-proprietors. Since revenue collection was of prime importance the name of malguzar was found fit to be shown in that capacity in the revenue record in addition to the name of the land-owner the tenant and the sub-tenant. The system continued even after the revenue assessments were evolved on more scientific lines.
To summarise, the standing practice in Doaba area was that the land owners seldom Paid land revenue to the Government out of their own pocket, the recovery was mostly done from the tenants. In fact, the big land owners who were absentees very often assigned the task of collection of land revenue from the tenants(for its onward payment to the Government), to the malguzars, who were paid a commission for the services rendered. Beyond this commission malguzar enjoyed no other rights. Rather, the Wajib-ul-Arz which forms part of the Misal Haqiat of this village for the year 1911-12 confirms that there was no legal status attached to the malguzars; Clause 3 clearly lays down that in case of any acquisition by the government, compensation for the land. which is under an occupancy tenant shall be distributed between the landlord and the tenant in equal shares. It has also been laid down that in case there is damage to any crop the compensation would go to the tenant. Thus, there is no legal recognition of the status of malguzars even in the Settlement Papers. If the status of malguzar were equivalent to that of a landowner or an occupancy tenant then it would have found an appropriate place in Punjab Occupancy Tenants (Vesting of Proprietary Rights) Act, 1952 or formal legal sanction through other enactments relating to land laws. Therefore, the purchase of malguzari rights by Gian Singh from Labhu Ram in 1958 does not qualify him for treatment either as an owner or as occupancy tenant. Since the malguzars owned their status to the landowners, with the migration of Muslim owners to Pakistan, these malguzars became persons non-grata. Since in this case the Occupancy tenants also similarly migrated to Pakistan the land vested in the Custodian.
6. As already pointed out vide the aforementioned Sale Deed Labhu Ram alienated total of 7 kanals only of his share in various khewats. Proportionately alienation of 1/12th of his portion of khewat No. 175 measuring 19 kanals comes to 1 kanal 12 marlas. The share of Gian Singh works out to 16 marlas, while the share of the rest of the petitioners and their predecessors-in-interest works out to another 16 marlas. Thus the effect of Sale Deed of 1958 is that it alienated only 1 kana116 marlas out of an area of 19 kanals 0 marla and that too in the form of malguzar rights because these were the only rights entered in column No. 4 of the jamabandi.
7. It may not be out of context to point out here that it is only Gian Singh who had raised objections to the auction of 1982. Even in the High Court the case was remanded only at the instance of Gian Singh. The other petitioners were not on the scene in any of the proceedings either before the High Court or in the lower courts. Yet they have staked their claim belatedly before me on the sole ground that Sale Deed of 1958 showed them as vendees alongwith Gian Singh for half of the 1/12th share alienated by Labhu Ram. They have admitted in their application that Gian Singh being elder member of the family had been pursuing all the litigation on their behalf and had been telling them that their rights would be safe-guarded. This shows that they were aware of the pending litigation throughout but deliberately stayed away so that this alternative plea could be taken, if necessary. However the above discussion will dispose of the claims of the remaining petitioners also.
8. A point which has been raised in the petition by Gian Singh is that this is not Custodian property, and, therefore it cannot be put to auction. It is established now that the property was shown as Evacuee Property in Revenue record much prior to the time auction took place. Allotment as sub-lessee was procured by Gian Singh in 1981 and auction of remaining portion took place in 1982. Therefore he cannot deny that the land was evacuee property and, therefore, liable to auction. It is well known fact immediately after Partition because of the preoccupation of the entire administration with relief and resettlement operations the revenue records could not be updated in line with the relevant enactments immediately after the exodus of the Muslim owners/tenants, and their ownership/tenancy continued to be reflected in the record for quite some time after Partition. It was only after the initial trauma was over that the State could attend to this aspect of the matter. It is now established that the correction of record showing ownership of the Central Govt. was made well before the auction took place. Gian Singh has tried to use the revenue record selectively to suit his own convenience and interests. Further it has already been mentioned that 24 Kanals 15 marlas out of khasra No.175 measures 44 kanals 5 marlas were allotted in favour of Gian Singh as a sub-lessee. This benefit he availed of under provisions of Chapter-V-A of the Displaced Persons (Compensation & Rehabilitation) Rules, 1955. Having admitted to a part of the property being urban evacuee agricultural land he cannot deny the remaining part of the same khasra number also being urban evacuee agricultural land. Thus this plea is defeated by his own conduct. The record and the Rules do not support his contention either.
In view of the above discussion, there is no merit in the averments of the petitioners and this petition is accordingly dismissed.
Announced.
Sd/-
Chandigarh, dated (SHYAMA MANN)
The 6th July, 1999 Financial Commissioner Revenue,
Punjab.
IN THE COURT OF MRS.
SHYAMA MANN, IAS, FINANCIAL COMMISSIONER REVENUE, PUNJAB, CHANDIGARH EXERCISING
THE POWERS OF CENTRAL GOVERNMENT U/S 33 OF THE DISPLACED PERSONS (COMPENSATION
& REHABILITATION) ACT, 1954.
Mehnga Singh son of Sh. Narain Singh, successor-in-interest of Sh. Lachhman Shukal son of Jiwan Singh, resident of village Dhariwal Kalan, Tehsil & District Gurdaspur (Punjab).
………Petitioner
Versus
1. Chief Settlement Commissioner, Punjab, S.C.O. No. 148-149, Sector 34-A, Chandigarh.
2. Settlement Commissioner, Rehabilitation Department, Punjab, Chandigarh.
3. Tehsildar (Headquarters)-cum-Managing Officer, Punjab, Chandigarh.
4. Sh. Baldev Singh son of Inder Singh.
5. Shri Hari Singh son of Piara Singh;
6. Smt. Swaran Kaur w/o Bhag Singh;
All residents of village Kamalpur, Tehsil Balachaur, District Hoshiarpur.
7. Gurdip Kaur w/o Chanan Singh;
8. Jasbir Kaur d/o Chanan Singh;
(L.Rs of deceased Chanan Singh son of Teja Singh)
Resident of Gilmanj, Tehsil & District Gurdaspur.
……….Respondents.
Present: Sh. S.N. Saini, Advocate, counsel for the petitioner.
Sh. G.S. Nagra, Advocate counsel for the respondents.
ORDER
This revision petition u/s 33 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation & Rehabilitation)Act, 1954 has been brought by Mehnga Singh son of Narain Singh against the order dated 14.7.98 passed by the Chief Settlement Commissioner, Punjab, Chandigarh and the order dated 6.5.91 passed by the Settlement Commissioner whereby an appeal filed against the order dated 8.12.89 passed by the Tehsildar-cum-Managing Officer, Chandigarh was dismissed.
2. The petitioner claims himself to be successor-in-interest of Lachhman Sukai s/o Jiwan Singh of village Dhariwal Kalan District Gurdaspur.
3. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that Smt. Rukmani Devi wd/o Jiwan Singh was a displaced person and was allotted land measuring 3 St. Acres 12-¾ units in village Kamalpur District Hoshiarpur. This allotment was cancelled in the year 1952 with the order of Director General Rehabilitation. Subsequently allotment was made in Village Dhariwal Kalan in the year 1953 and proprietary rights were conferred upon the allottee in the year 1955. The allotment of land in village Kamalpur also somehow remained intact in the name of Smt. Rukmani Devi and the same was sold by the General Attorney of the allottee in favour of Baldev Singh etc. through Registered sale deed dated 27.4.1967. During the course of preparation of Directory it was detected that Rukmani Devi was holding double allotment in village Kamalpur and Dhariwal Kalan. The Managing Officer again cancelled the allotment of land of village Kamalpur vide his order dated 9.5.67. This order was challenged by the vendees in appeal, which was accepted by the Settlement Commissioner and the case was remanded vide order dated 31.8.1967 to the Managing Officer for deciding it afresh. On a suo-motu reference made by Managing Officer to the Chief Settlement Commissioner for the cancellation of permanent allotment of land in village Dhariwal Kalan, the same was cancelled on 27.1.1968 by the Chief Settlement Commissioner. The controversy regarding allotment persisted and eventually the Settlement Commissioner vide order dated 28.8.1980 remanded the case to the Managing Officer with the direction that matter be decided after affording an opportunity to all the concerned. The Managing Officer passed the order dated 22.8.1986 wherein he concluded that the area allotted in village Kamalpur was cancelled by the Director General, Rehabilitation in 1952 and only thereafter the land in village Dhariwal Kalan District Gurdaspur was allotted. The area in village Kamalpur was ordered to be cancelled on account of bogus allotment vide order dated 22.8.1986. The said order was challenged in appeal by Hardev Singh etc. who claimed to be vendees of the land allotted in village Kamalpur. In appeal the case was remanded by Settlement Commissioner vide order dated 14.12.1987 to Tehsildar-cum-Managing Officer, Chandigarh on the ground that Sh. Chanan Singh cited as respondent was not heard before passing the impugned order. The Tehsildar-cum-Managing Officer passed an order dated 8.12.1989 in which he held that the allotment of village Dhariwal Kalan had already been cancelled and the land had been further allotted to Chanan Singh; And Lachhman was not a genuine claimant. This order was again challenged by Lachhman in appeal befit the Settlement Commissioner but the same was dismissed vide order dated 6.5.1991 on the ground that the Managing Officer had no power to alter the order of Chief Settlement Commissioner dated 27.1.1968 vide his order dated 22.8.1986. He further observed that the land had been allotted to Chanan Singh in pursuance of the order dated 27.1.1968. He further observed that Smt. Rukmani Devi wd/o Jiwan Singh had been allotted land in two villages by mistake and if her heir or attorney of heir sold the land rightly or wrongly to other persons, it became a different aspect which had no concern with the allotment. Accordingly he dismissed the appeal vide order dated 6.5.1991.
4. This order was challenged by Lachman Shukal through his attorney Mehnga Singh (petitioner herein) by filing a revision petition before the Chief Settlement Commissioner which was dismissed vide order dated 28.6.1993. He found that Mehnga Singh, General Attorney could not produce Sh. Lachman Shukal in the proceedings before the Court inspite of the order dated 25.11.1991 and 7.6.1993 nor could he produce any evidence to prove that Lachman Shukal was the legal heir of Smt. Rukmani Devi. He also took cognizance of the fact that the land in dispute had been sold in favour of Kashmir Singh etc. and that the alleged attorney had not placed the original power of attorney on the record and had submitted unattested photocopy dated 18.2.1986 which did not deserve reliance. He concluded that the allotment of land made in favour of Chanan Singh s/o Teja Singh in village Dhariwal Kalan was valid and P. Rights and had rightly been conferred upon him. According to him the only remedy available to the petitioner was to approach the Civil Court against the legal heir of Rukmani Devi who had sold the land allotted to her in village Kamalpur to Baldev Singh, Hari Singh and Swaran Kaur. While further observing that the property having gone out of the “compensation pool” and the Rehabilitation Department had no jurisdiction to deal with the same, he dismissed the revision petition as also the petition filed against the order dated 27.1.1968 of the Chief Settlement Commissioner.
5. The aforesaid order dated 28.6.1992 was challenged before the then Financial Commissioner Revenue by filing a revision petition u/s 33 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954. The revision petition was dismissed vide order dated 14.11.95 on the ground that Lachman Shukal had not appeared in person before the Court inspite of specific directions given vide order dated 18.7.95, 8.8.95 and 14.11.1995. It was also found that Lachman Shukal is not the legal heir of Rukmani Devi allottee and Mehnga Singh alleged attorney had placed on record merely an unattested photo copy of the attorney dated 18.2.1986. An application for review of the order dated 14.11.1995 was also dismissed on 19.12.1995.
6. Aggrieved by this order of my Learned predecessor, the petitioner challenged the same before the Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in C.W.P. No. 1297 of 1996 which was dismissed vide order dated 5.11.1996 with the following observations: -
“After having heard the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the paper book, we are convinced that the conduct of the petitioner is not free from doubt. The petitioner was asked to produce the person who had given power of attorney in his favour. Had the person who had given his power of attorney been alive, the petitioner would not have hesitated to produce him. It appears that the said person had died. It also emerges from the facts of this case that had the person who had given power of attorney been produced, he would not have admitted the genuineness of the power of attorney.
There is another snag in the petitioner’s case. It is not disputed that the petitioner had been pursuing earlier litigation before the Managing Officer, Settlement Commissioner, Chief Settlement Commissioner and the Financial Commissioner Revenue, Punjab, Chandigarh as General Power of Attorney of Lachman Shukal. Objection was raised by the respondents that Lachman Shukal was no more and that the litigation was being pursued by Mehnga Singh petitioner unnecessarily. Therefore, this writ petition filed by the petitioner in his own name is not maintainable.
For the foregoing reasons, this writ petition is dismissed.
It has been brought to the notice of this court that the petitioner has been applied for the grant of succession certificate. Nothing observed above shall, however, prejudice the case of the petitioner for the grant of Succession-Certificate.
Sd/-
M.L. Singhal, Judge.”
7. The petitioner then filed S.L.P. No. 3048 of 1997 in the Hon’ble Supreme Court which also met with the same fate vide following orders dated 14.12.1997 : -
“We have asked Learned counsel for the petitioner whether he is claiming to represent Lachman on the basis of the power of attorney alleged to have been given by the Lachman in his favour or upon the basis of the Will alleged to have been made by Lachman. Learned counsel states that the petitioner does not know either Lachman is alive or dead. The S.L.P. is dismissed.”
8. Now let us revert to the order dated 5.11.1996 of the Hon’ble High Court of Punjab & Haryana which has been reproduced above. It is noticed that in the concluding lines it was observed that the order shall not prejudice the case of the petitioner for grant of succession certificate.
9. Meanwhile the petitioner applied for the grant of succession certificate in respect of an amount of Rs. 10,202/- (with interest) lying in the saving bank account No. 45352 in the State Bank of India, Amritsar branch standing in the name of Lachman alias Shukal. The Court of Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Gurdaspur, passed an order dated 30.8.1997 thereby granting succession certificate in favour of Mehnga Singh on the ground that Lachman alias Shukal had executed a registered Will in favour of Mehnga Singh.
10. The ghost of Lachman Shukal continued to haunt Mehnga Singh, petitioner. After obtaining orders regarding grant of succession certificate, he filed a fresh revision petition before the Chief Settlement Commissioner, Chandigarh agitating his claim against the order dated 6.5.1991 of the Settlement Commissioner. This petition was dismissed by the impugned order dated 14.7.1998 on the ground that the order of Settlement Commissioner had attained finality and therefore, the revision petition was not maintainable. Being dissatisfied with the said order dated 14.7.1998, Mehnga Singh filed the present revision petition U/s 33 of the Displaced Persons (C&R) Act, 1954. I have carefully examined the record of the case and heard the arguments of the Learned counsel of both parties. In my opinion this petition is liable to be dismissed.
11. On scanning the chronology of litigation recapitulated above, it is revealed that the petitioner had lost his battle upto the Apex Court. The controversy which had been finally settled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court while dismissing the S.L.P. No. 3048 of 1997 vide order dated 14.2.1997, is being raked up afresh by the petitioner without any visible justification. The sheet-anchor for the present bout of litigation is traceable to the concluding lines of the order dated 5.11.1996 of the Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court reproduced above, wherein it was observed that the observations contained in the earlier part of that order shall not prejudice the case of petitioner. These observations were inevitably aimed at saving the petitioner from the probable prejudice which may have been occasioned to him as a result of lower court being influenced by the adverse observations of the Hon’ble High Court, culminating in the dismissal of the claim of the petitioner regarding the land of Rukkmani Devi. Therefore, the mere fact that Mehnga Singh, petitioner had succeeded in obtaining succession certificate in respect of a paltry amount of Rs. 10202/- alongwith interest, lying in the State Bank of India account of Lachman alias Shukal does not entitled him to get the land allotted of Rukmani in his favour. The proceedings before the Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division) Gurdaspur were restricted to an enquiry into the title of Mehnga Singh for the grant of succession certificate in respect of aforesaid amount and there was no occasion for him to go into the question regarding title to the land of Rukmani. This aspect never came up for consideration before the Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division). In this connection it would be pertinent to make a point reference to the observations contained in para 17of the order dated 30.8.1997 of the Court of Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division) which reads as follows: -
“Regarding the second contention of the respondents, that Lachman alias Shukal was not the son of Jiwan Singh and as such was not a legal heir of Smt. Rukmani Devi is concerned. It is not the subject matter of this petition. In this petition, there is dispute about the succession of Lachman alias Shukal and not of Smt. Rukmani Devi. As such, this contention is irrelevant for the purposes of deciding this application.”
12. A plain reading of these observations leave no manner of doubt that the court of Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division) was not called upon to adjudicated upon the controversy regarding the succession of land of Rukmani.
13. The petitioner is guilty of suppression of material facts. The Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division) Gurdaspur pronounced the order on 30.8.1997 whereas the S.L.P. had been dismissed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court much earlier vide order dated 14.2.1997. The said order was never brought to the notice of the Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division) Gurdaspur by Mehnga Singh for obvious reasons. It is somewhat intriguing to note that in the application for grant of succession certificate which was filed on 6.2.1996, the petitioner Mehnga Singh projected Lachman alias Shukal as deceased, but while appearing in the Hon’ble Supreme Court a year later his counsel pleaded ignorance whether Lachman alias Shukal was dead or alive. This material contradiction eludes reconciliation and goes to the root of his claim. If the orders of the Hon’ble Supreme court had been brought to the notice of Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division) Gurdaspur, he would have certainly stayed his hand in the matter of grant of succession certificate.
14. The land in dispute was not in issue in any manner in the summary proceedings u/s 372 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 before the Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division). Moreover, the State was never impleaded as a party in those proceedings. Since these proceedings were continued in the grant of succession certificate for an amount standing the name of Lachman alias Shukal. The State had nothing at stake and there was no occasion for it to be impleaded in those proceedings. It is well settled that inquiry in the proceedings for the grant of succession certificate are characteristically summary and a succession certificate is not a final adjudication as to who is the next heir and as such entitled to the estate of deceased. The grant of succession certificate merely clothes the holder of the succession certificate with the authority to realise the debts of the deceased and to give valid discharge. He is, however, to dispose of the amount so realised in accordance with the rights of the persons who are entitled to it (First National Bank Ltd. Vs. Shiridevidayal AIR 1968 Punjab 292). Herein we are concerned with the claim of Mehnga Singh to the land of Rukmani Devi and thus the order of the Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division) is not relevant and has absolutely no bearing on the point of controversy involved in this revision petition.
15. The petitioner having lost his claim upto the final Court cannot be permitted to make a capital out of the concessional observations of the Hon’ble High Court regarding the grant of succession certificate in respect of the amount lying in the bank in the name of Lachman Shukal in reagitating his claim. Having exhausted all forums upto the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the issuance of succession certificate in his favour does not give rise to a fresh cause of action to file revision petition by invoking the provisions of Displaced Persons (C&R) Act, 1954, as the proceedings had earlier attained finality with the orders of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in S.L.P. No. 3048 of 1997.
16. In the light of my foregoing discussion, I am of the opinion that the Ld. Chief Settlement Commissioner was fully justified in reaching the conclusion that the succession certificate in possession of Mehnga Singh had no relevance to the claim of the petitioner qua the land in dispute and that the revision petition was not maintainable. The same infirmity afflicts the present petition as well. In the result no error or irregularity is discernible in the approach of Ld. Chief Settlement Commissioner while passing the impugned order dated 14.7.1998. This petition is accordingly dismissed being devoid of any merits.
17. While parting with this order I cannot help observing that the death of Rukmani Devi having taken place in 1962 as alleged, there was no occasion for sale in 1967 of the land allotted to her in village Kamalpur. This is more so when Avtar Singh who was supposed to be her son and her successor is reported to have died in 1956 and a mutation of his succession is also reported to be existing to that effect. Therefore, there seems some substance in the allegation that the sale in village Kamalpur in the year 1967 was by a bogus person impersonating as Avtar Singh. This fact has found mention in the order of Managing Officer dated 22.8.1986 as also in the order of Settlement Commissioner dated 14.12.1987, yet no action was taken to probe the matter. This gives rise to the suspicion that the various orders canceling the allocation in village Dhaliwal and upholding the allocation in village Kamalpur were passed with the sole purpose of accommodating Baldev Singh etc. the alleged vendees of Rukmani Devi. Deputy Commissioner should have a detailed inquiry conducted into the subject and if it is proved that the sale was fraudulent then in the context of the fact that there is no successor of Rukmani Devi on the horizon, the land would be liable to be reverted back to the Compensation Pool. Action taken & result thereof be intimated to the Officer of the Financial Commissioner Revenue in the Rehabilitation Branch within a period of four months for which purpose a copy of this order be also endorsed to the said Branch.
Announced.
Chandigarh, dated. (SHYAMA MANN)
the 14th Sept., 1999 Financial Commissioner Revenue,
IN THE COURT OF SMT. AGYA
RAJINDER SINGH, IAS, SPECIAL SECRETARY-CUM-CHIEF SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER,
REVENUE & REHABILITATION DEPARTMENT, PUNJAB, CHANDIGARH
Revision Petition No. 6/GSP/1997/CSC
Mehnga Singh son of Sh. Narain Singh, Successor-in-Interest of Lachhman Shukal son of Jiwan Singh resident of village Dhariwal Kalan, Tehsil and District Gurdaspur.
….Petitioner.
Versus
1. Settlement Commissioner, Revenue & Rehabilitation Department, Punjab, Chandigarh.
2. Tehsildar (Headquarters)-cum-Managing Officer, Punjab, Chandigarh.
3. Sh. Baldev Singh son of Inder Singh
4. Sh. Hari Singh son of Piara Singh
5. Smt. Swaran Kaur w/o Bhag Singh.
All resident of village Kamalpur, Tehsil Balachaur, District Hoshiarpur.
6. Gurdip Kaur w/o Chanan Singh
7. Jasbir Kaur d/o Chanan Singh
(LRs of deceased Chanan Singh son of Teha Singh) R/o Gilmanj, Tehsil and Distt. Gurdaspur.
…..Respondents
Present :- Sh. Som Nath Saini, Advocate alongwith petitioner Sh. Mehnga Singh.
This
revision petition has been filed by Sh. Mehnga Singh son of Sh. Narain Singh,
claiming to be successor-in-Interest of Sh. Lachhman Shukal son of Jiwan Singh,
resident of village Dhariwal Kalan, Tehsil Gurdaspur against the order dated
6.5.1991 of the Settlement Commissioner whereby he had dismissed the appeal
against the order dated 8.12.1989 of the Tehsildar (Headquarters)-cum-Managing
Officer cancelling the allotment in favour of Smt. Rukmani Devi wife of Sh. Jiwan
Singh mentioned above.
2. Earlier
the petitioner (Sh. Mehnga Singh) had filed an appeal as attorney of Sh.
Lachhman Shukal against the same (impugned) order of Settlement Commissioner to
the Chief Settlement Commissioner who rejected the same vide his orders dated
28.6.1993. Further appeal filed him to
the Financial Commissioner (Revenue) was rejected vide his orders dated
14.11.1995. This was followed by
rejection of a Misc. application to Financial Commissioner (Revenue) for fresh
decision on his appeal, vide Financial Commissioner (Revenue) orders dated
19.12.1995. Aggrieved by orders dated
14.11.95 and 19.12.95 of Financial Commissioner Revenue, order dated 28.6.93 of
Chief Settlement Commissioner, orders dated 6.5.91 and 14.12.87 of Settlement
Commissioner and order dated
8.12.89 of Tehsildar (Headquarters)-cum-Managing Officer, the petitioner filed
a Civil Writ Petition No. 1267 of 1996 in the Punjab & Haryana High Court
which was dismissed vide Court orders dated 5.11.1996 mainly for the reason
that he could not produce Sh. Lachhman Shukal in the High Court as he could not
do so before the Financial Commissioner (Revenue). The High Court further observed: -
"It has been brought to the notice of this Court that the petitioner has also applied for the grant of Succession Certificate. Nothing observed above shall, however, prejudice the case of the petitioner for the grant of Succession Certificate."
Against above decision of the High Court, the petitioner filed SLP (No.3048 of 1997) in the Supreme Court of India which was dismissed with the following orders dated 14.2.1997 :-
"We have asked learned counsel for the petitioner whether he is claiming to represent Lachhman on the basis of the power of attorney alleged to have been given by Lachhman in his favour or upon the basis of the Will alleged to have been made by Lachhman. Learned counsel states that the petitioner does not know whether Lachhman is alive or dead. The SLP is dismissed."
Learned
counsel for the petitioner Sh. Som Nath Saini while pleading maintainability of
the revision petition urged that he has obtained Succession Certificate of
Property of Sh. Lachhman Shukal in his favour.
In this regard he referred to the order dated 30.8.1997 of Additional
Civil Judge, Gurdaspur, enclosed as Annexure P-1 with the revision
petition. A bare and cursory perusal of
the aforementioned order reveals that it is a Succession Certificate in favour
of the petitioner only in respect of amount (Rs. 20,282/- + interest) in a
Savings Bank Account No. 45352 in State Bank of India, Hall Bazzar, Amritsar of
Sh. Lachhman Shukal. This Succession
Certificate has no relevancy to the claim of the petitioner as
Successor-in-Interest of Sh. Lachhman Shukal in respect of the land in dispute,
reference to which was made by the Hon'ble High Court in orders of the writ
petition No. 1267 of 1996.
Besides with rejection of appeals against the impugned orders of Settlement Commissioner, and subsequent orders of Chief Settlement Commissioner, of Financial Commissioner (Revenue) and of Hon'ble High Court, the impugned order has attained finality.
After careful consideration of the revision petition, the record, the arguments of learned counsel for the petitioner and for reasons given above, I am of the opinion that the present revision petition is not maintainable. The petitioner may seek remedy before the appropriate authority, if so advised.
Announced.
(Agya Rajinder Singh)
Chandigarh, Chief Settlement Commissioner,
Dated 14.7.1998. Revenue & Rehabilitation Deptt.,
Punjab