9911796707
TMI Blog1986 (10) TMI 326X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n areas now forming a part of Pakistan when they were obliged to migrate to India in the wake of the partition. A number of proceedings were undertaken in the context of the excess allotment made to them (hereafter called the allottees). Ultimately the Chief Settlement Commissioner by his order dated May 4, 1963 cancelled the allotment of the excess land (11 S.A. 2 units) which was made by an inadvertent mistake. On May 17, 1963 the allottees made an application praying that the excess land wrongly allotted to them should be sold to them under Rule 73(2)(ii) of the Rules. On the premise that they had a legal right to purchase the excess land under the said rule. This application was rejected by the Chief Settlement Commissioner on March 19, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ees that by virtue of the aforesaid Rule the Chief Settlement Commissioner was under a legal obligation to allot the excess area to them upon their paying for the excess area in cash or by adjustment against the compensation payable to them in respect of verified claim for any urban property or rural building. The High Court negatived the contention urged on behalf of the appellant (Chief Settlement Commissioner, Punjab) that the expression may conferred a discretion on the Settlement Commissioner and that it did not impose any legal obligation on him to sell the excess area to the persons to whom land was allotted in excess of their lawful entitlement. It is the validity of this view which is in issue before this Court. 2. The question ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f mistake or otherwise. An interpretation which would defeat the benign purpose to compensate those who have suffered on account of partition but would result in rewarding those who have gained undue advantage by mistake or otherwise and placing a premium on such mistakes, cannot be countenanced. The judgment of the High Court on this point cannot, therefore, be sustained. We may observe for the sake of record that the judgment of the High Court upholding the order of cancellation of the allotment to the allottees of excess area to the extent of 11 S.A. 2 Units by mistake remains undisturbed. 3. Learned Counsel for the allottees (original writ petitioners) in desperation has urged a contention based on the Punjab Package Deal Properties ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
