9911796707
TMI Blog1957 (5) TMI 49X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e appellants migrated to India abandoning 273 acres 6 kanals of first grade land irrigated by perennial canals situate in Chalk No. 205/R-B., Tehsil Jaranwala, District Lyalpur. In 1947 the appellants were given two units of lands in two villages, Todarpur and Naharpur, in Tehsil Jagadhari, District Ambala on a temporary basis. At the time of quasi-permanent allotment in November 1949, the appellants were given 133 acres 15 1/4 units of land in two villages Khandua and Naharpur, which lands were of the second grade. On 20th February 1950 the appellants allotment in Khandua was cancelled and the whole of 133 acres 15 1/4 units of land was allotted to them in village Naharpur. In order to accommodate a group of people known as Brij Lal group in village Naharpur the allotment made to the appellants was cancelled on 6th June 1950, and the appellants were directed by the Director General, Relief and Rehabilitation (Additional Custodian), hereinafter referred to as the Director General, to be shifted from village Naharpur to the villages of Jaurian and Kottarkhans in Tehsil Jagadhari in the District of Ambala, where the lands were of the first grade. It appears that on 7th June 195 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d were allotted to Rai Sahib Maya Bhan Batra in village Ratauli on a temporary basis. This temporary allotment of 36 acres was, however, reduced to an allotment of 12 acres, for at that time no single allotment was being made for more than 12 acres. The Rehabilitation Department having, later on issued instructions that persons, who had left large holdings in Pakistan, could be allotted more than 12 acres, Rai Sahib Maya Bhan Batra on 5th June 1918, applied to the Director General for the allotment in he same village of Ratauli of the balance of the lands to which he was entitled. Rai Sahib Maya Bhan Batra died on 29th June 1948, leaving certain heirs of whom the respondent No. 2, N.R. Batra, is one. Before any allotment could be made in favour of the heirs of Rai Sahib Maya Bhan Batra, a notification, was issued on 9th September 1949 at the instance of the Northern Railway reserving the lands in certain villages including the village of Ratauli for the purpose of construction of a Railway Workshop. In view of the fact that there was no land available in the village of Ratauli, in consequence of the reservation of the lands for the Railways, an area of 112.7 acres was on 11th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was cancelled. The above cancellation, however, was rescinded and the land was restored to them. 6. It appears from a letter dated April 28, 1950, from the Chief Administrative Officer (Engineering) E. P. Railway, Delhi to the Chief Engineer (Development) Punjab P. W. D. Buildings and Roads Branch. Simla that owing to the stringency of funds the project for construction of the Railway Workshop had been abandoned and that the notification for acquisition of the lands might not be published in the Punjab Government Gazette. It is not clear at all that this information was passed on to the Relief and Rehabilitation Department at any time prior to September 1950. It appears that the application made by B.L. Batra on February 20, 1950 for allotment of land to them in village Ratauli where they originally had temporary allotments, was followed up by another application by the heirs of Rai Sahib Maya Bhan Batra on March 23, 1951. The fact of this application is admitted by the Additional Custodian in his written Statement but he stated that it was not forthcoming, presumably meaning that it had been mislaid in the office. A remainder appears to have been sent on August 1, 1951. N ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... operty Act? (2) Whether Rule 14 (6), even if intra vires, is applicable to it orders cancelling the allotments, if such orders have been made before the date on which the amendments were made? The Full Bench answered the first question in the negative and in answer to the second question held that orders passed by either the Custodian or Custodian General in exercise of their powers under Section 26 or 27 cancelling allotments in pending cases regarding orders passed before 22nd July, 1952, were valid, even if passed by the Custodian before 13th February, 1952, and by the, Custodian General before 25th August, 1953.'' The matter then went back to the Division Bench which, in the light of the answers given by the Full Bench, found no ground torn interference and dismissed the appellant's writ petition. The High Court, however, gave a certificate of fitness for appeal to this Court with which the present appeal has been filed. 8. Mr. Harnam Singh appearing in support of this appeal has not questioned the correctness of the answers given to either, of the questions by the Full Bench. He concedes that the Deputy Custodian General, while disposing of the revi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rnment under Sub-section 1 of Section 55 of the Act to make rules under Clause 1 of Sub-section (2) of Section 56 of the said Act, the Punjab Government on August 29, 1951 promulgated, amongst other things the following rule, in substitution for the previous rules with retrospective effect: 1. The Custodian shall be competent to cancel or terminate any lease or allotment or vary the terms of any lease, allotment or agreement and evict the lessee/allottee in any one of the following circumstances: - (a) that the lease/allotment is contrary to the orders of the Punjab Government or the instructions of the Financial Commissioner, Relief and Rehabilitation, or of the Custodian, Evacuees Property, Punjab; (b) that the lessee/allottee has infringed or intends infringing any of the terms of the lease/allotment; (c) that the lease/allotment was obtained by false declaration or insufficient information; (d) that the area leased/allotted to or occupied by the lessee/allottee is more or less than he was authorised to take on the lease/allotment or occupy under the instructions issued by the Punjab Government or the Financial Commissioner, Relief and Rehabilitation or the Custod ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lause (e), because the claims of respondent No. 2 had been established or accepted by the rehabilitation authorities. He also relies on Clause (h) and Clause (i). All these claims are refuted by the learned counsel for the appellants. It is not necessary for us to express any opinion on the contention in so far as they are founded on Clause (a) and (e) of the Punjab Rule (1) Suffice it to say that the allotment in favour of the appellants could well be cancelled by the Custodian under Clause (h) and (i). The Deputy Custodian General has given cogent grounds for such cancellation, namely, that ''Tehsil Jugadhari was not within the area of sub-allocation scheme so far as the appellants are concerned, that, in the second place, the appellant's never had any temporary allotment in village Ratauli and could not, therefore, be said to be sitting allottees of that village. Raj Sahib Maya Bhan Batra, on the other hand came from Sahapur and was entitled to be accommodated in Tehsil Jugadhari and, in point of face, he had a temporary allotment of 30 acres, which was subsequently reduced to 12 acres, in village Ratauli. His allotment was changed only because the lands in cer ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tribunal is erroneous in law. Then after referring to the case of Rex v. Northumberland Compensation Appeal Tribunal; Ex parte Shaw, 1951 K B 711 and Ors. cases and quoting the following passage from the judgment of Mukherjea J. in T. C. Basappa v. T. Nagappa, [1955]1SCR250 . An error in the decision or determination itself may also be amenable to a writ of certiorari but it must be a manifest error apparent on the face of the proceedings, e.g., when it is based on the clear ignorance or disregard of the provisions of law. In other words; it is a patent error which can be corrected by 'certiorari' but not a mere wrong decision. This Court held on the fourth point as follows: It may, therefore, be taken as settled that a writ of certiorari could be issued to correct an error of law. But it is essential that it should be something more than a mere error; it must be one which must be manifest on the face of the record. The real difficulty with reference to this matter, however, is not so much in the statement of the principle as in its application to the facts of a particular case. When does an error cease to be a mere error, and become an error apparent on the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , 1950, when allotment was made to the appellants the respondent No. 2 and his relations were not sitting allottees of village Ratauli, for on that date the respondent No. 2 and his relations were settled in three other villages and consequently they could not under the law recorded in the Manual claim any allotment in village Ratauli where they ceased to be sitting allottees and, therefore, there is an error of law apparent on the face of record. The fact is that Rai Sahib Maya Bhan Batra was originally allotted land in village Ratauli. He having come from Sahapur District Jugadhari was the proper Tehsil for re-settling him. The allotment to him was shifted only because the lands in Ratauli and other villages had been reserved for the Railway workshop. These are matters which could properly be taken into consideration in applying the departmental instructions contained in the Land Re-settlement Manual. There is nothing in the departmental rules which militates against the allotment of lands in Ratauli to the heirs of Rai Sahib Maya Bhan Batra or which takes away the power of cancellation given to the Custodian to cancel the allotment of the appellants. These departmental ins ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
