9911796707
TMI Blog1970 (9) TMI 113X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... said Tahsildar. 3. It appears that after partition the appellant laid a claim for land In lieu of the land at Samundri left by him in Pakistan and was allotted about 26 standard acres of land. The allotment was challenged by respondent 3, who having failed before the Deputy Custodian General of Evacuee Property, applied to the Rehabilitation Minister, Government of Punjab. The Minister passed an order dated April 14, 1960 cancelling the said allotment. The order was totally un-authorised as the Minister had obviously no jurisdiction to pass it The Chief Settlement Commissioner, instead of implementing it, only order ed that the legal position with regard to the allotment in appellant's favour may be verified. On doing so, the Managing Officer recommended cancellation of the said allotment on the ground that the copies of letters said to have been endorsed to the appellant and which he had produced did not appear to be genuine. The appellant had also produced before the authorities copies of the said alleged original letters, which he claimed were given to him on his application duly attested by the authorities at Lyallpur. 4. On June 30, 1960, the Commissioner cancelled the a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lier decision cancelling the allotment in favour of the appellant. 7. The reasons which he gave for his conclusion were: (a) the list of persons who were given gallantry awards, supplied by the military authorities to the Rehabilitation Department, did not show that the appellant was the recipient of any gallantry award; (b) in reply to a query by the Rehabilitation Department, the Officer Incharge Records, by his letter dated December 23, 1960, stated that his records did not show any such gallantry award having been confer red on the appellant; (c) the Officer Incharge Records, however, addressed another letter dated February 2, 1961 at the instance of the appellant in which It was stated that the records "for the land allotted to soldiers for distinguished services during World War II" were not available in his office but may be available in the office of the respective Deputy Commissioner; according to the Chief Settlement Commissioner, this letter would not mean that the appellant was granted any gallantry award; (d) neither the Khasra Girdawari nor the Jamabandi of Chak No. 468 at Samundri, nor the Patwari's Roznamcha Waquiati for the relevant period comp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by the Indian High Commission in Pakistan it was impossible to say whether the copies and the attestation thereon were genuine; and (h) the copies, on the basis of which the appellant procured the allotment of land, were not genuine, but were forged documents, and therefore, neither the allotment in his favour nor the permanent rights acquired by him thereunder could be sustained. 8. On the Commissioner thus rejecting his case once more, the appellant filed a fresh writ petition in the High Court where he raised three questions. The first was that the High Court had in the earlier writ petition concluded that the said copies were genuine and that the Commissioner, in holding that they were not, had gone beyond the scope of the High Court's order of remand. The second was that that finding in any event was vitiated as there was no evidence before the Commissioner upon which he could hold that the said copies were fabricated documents, that some of the reasons given by him were either extraneous or invalid, and that therefore, his finding was vitiated- The appellant had at first raised only these two contentions. It, however, appears that the Advocate General, who appeared at ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ns turn out to be irrelevant or invalid, it would be impossible for a superior Court to find out which of the reasons, relevant or irrelevant, valid or invalid, had brought about such satisfaction. But in a case where the conclusion is based on objective facts and evidence, such a difficulty would not arise. If it is found that there was legal evidence before the Tribunal, even if some of it was irrelevant, a superior Court would not interfere if the finding can be sustained on the rest of the evidence. The reason is that in a writ petition for certiorari the superior Court does not sit in appeal, but exercises only supervisory jurisdiction, and therefore, does not enter into the question of sufficiency of evidence. There was, in our view, legal evidence before the Commissioner upon which he was entitled to rest his finding that the copies relied on by the appellant were not genuine. 11. That takes us to the third contention which is now based on the additional evidence adduced before the High Court. It is amply clear from that evidence that whenever a gallantry award is granted it would be entered in the sheet-roll maintained by the company in which the awardee is serving, and th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
