9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Jurisdiction of the Section Officer-cum-Managing Officer to cancel the allotment. 2. Validity of the reference made by Respondent 3 to Respondent 2. 3. Reliance on contradictory documents from Pakistan authorities. 4. Powers of the Chief Settlement Commissioner under Section 24 of the Act. 5. Merits of the case regarding the classification of the land. Detailed Analysis: 1. Jurisdiction of the Section Officer-cum-Managing Officer to Cancel the Allotment: The appellants contended that once proprietary rights were conferred upon them, the Section Officer-cum-Managing Officer had no jurisdiction to cancel the allotment. However, the court held that under Section 19 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954, the Section Officer-cum-Managing Officer had the authority to cancel any allotment or amend the terms of any lease or allotment. This power was exercised based on subsequent verification of relevant revenue records from Pakistan, which justified the cancellation of the excess allotment. 2. Validity of the Reference Made by Respondent 3 to Respondent 2: The appellants argued that Respondent 3 was not justified in making a reference to Respondent 2 for canceling the proprietary rights conferred upon them. The court found no merit in this argument, stating that both the Section Officer-cum-Managing Officer under Section 19 and the Chief Settlement Commissioner under Section 24 had jurisdiction to revise earlier orders. The reference made by Respondent 3 to Respondent 2 was deemed valid and lawful. 3. Reliance on Contradictory Documents from Pakistan Authorities: The appellants contended that the documents received from Pakistan, namely the Fard Taqsim and Khasra Girdawari, were contradictory and unreliable. The court noted that the Chief Settlement Commissioner had verified these documents after inspection from the original records from Pakistan authorities and Indian officials. The court held that these documents were important revenue records and provided a reliable basis for determining the classification of the land owned by the appellants' father. 4. Powers of the Chief Settlement Commissioner under Section 24 of the Act: The appellants argued that the Chief Settlement Commissioner could not exercise revisionary power under Section 24(2) as no fraud, false representation, or concealment of material fact was alleged or proved. The court clarified that the specific power under Sub-section (2) is illustrative and does not restrict the general power conferred under Sub-section (1). Therefore, the Chief Settlement Commissioner was within his rights to cancel the allotment based on the revised verification of the land classification. 5. Merits of the Case Regarding the Classification of the Land: The initial allotment was made on the assumption that the land left by the appellants' father in Pakistan was canal irrigated. However, subsequent records from the Pakistan government showed that the land included Banjar Jadid, Banjar Qadim, and Ghair Mumkin land, which did not entitle the appellants to the full extent of the allotment initially made. The court upheld the findings of the Chief Settlement Commissioner, who relied on the Fard Taqsim and Khasra Girdawari to conclude that the entire land was not canal irrigated, resulting in an excess allotment of 15-17 1/2 standard acres. The court also noted that the appellants had the opportunity to produce documentary evidence to establish that the entire land was canal irrigated. However, the Shud Kar records, which could have corroborated their claim, were reported to have been destroyed. The court found no illegality or impropriety in the orders passed by the concerned authorities and dismissed the appeal with costs. Conclusion: The court dismissed the appeal, upholding the cancellation of the excess allotment made to the appellants' father. The judgment emphasized the validity of the jurisdiction exercised by the Section Officer-cum-Managing Officer and the Chief Settlement Commissioner, the reliability of the revenue records from Pakistan, and the appellants' failure to provide contrary evidence.
|
