http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 4  

PETITIONER: MOHINDER SINGH

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT26/07/1977

BENCH: UNTWALIA, N.L. BENCH: UNTWALIA, N.L. FAZALALI, SYED MURTAZA

CITATION:  1977 AIR 2012            1978 SCR  (1) 177  1977 SCC  (3) 502

ACT: Displaced  persons  (Compensation and  Rehabilitation)  Act. 1954-Sec.    12-33-Displaced   persons    (Compensation    & Rehabilitation)  Rules 1955-Rules 34 C-Value of  entries  in the record of rights-If conclusive-If can be rebutted.

HEADNOTE: The  appellant  applied  for  allotment  of  certain   urban agricultural   land  which  was  a  part  of   the   evacuee agricultural land acquired under section 12 of the Displaced Persons  (Compensation  & Rehabilitation)  Act,  1954.   The appellant approached the authority for transfer of the  land to him in accordance with rule 34C of the Rules.  He claimed to  be  in possession of the land in  question  continuously from before January 1, 1956, although his name was not  even recorded  in  the  Jamabandi or the  Khasra  Girdawari.   He examined some witnesses before the ’Settlement Officer,  who accepted their oral evidence and by his order dated 21-81969 held that the appellant was entitled to get transfer of  the land  at  a price to be fixed under rule 34B of  the  Rules. Several years later a reference was made. under section  24 of the Act by the Superintendent for setting aside the order of   the   Settlement   Officer.    The   Chief   Settlement Commissioner accepted the reference and set aside the order. The appellant went in revision under section 33 ,of the  Act which was dismissed by the Financial Commissioner.  The Writ Petition  filed  by  the appellant  before  the  High  Court failed. Allowing the appeal, HELD : The appellant claims that he has been cultivating the land  continuously  from the year 1954  onwards.   He  filed application  in  1973  for correction of the  entry  in  the Khasra  Girdawari by recording his name therein.   The  Naib Tahsildar  directed the correction, of the Khasra  Girdawari for  the  period 1971-72 and 7273. He could not  direct  the entry  of  the earlier period since he could not  do  so  in accordance   with   the  departmental   instructions.    The appellant  filed a suit in 1974 for correction of the  entry for  the  earlier  period.  The lessees  were  impleaded  as defendants  but in spite of service of summons they did  not appear to contest it.  The suit was decreed ex-parte and the appellant  was  declared as tenant of the  land  in  dispute

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 4  

since  1954.   The  Chief Settlement  Commissioner  and  the Financial  Commissioner  did not place any reliance  on  the testimony  of the witneses examined by the appellant in  the absence  of  entries in the revenue record. it  Is  not  the requirement  of  the rule that a  person  claiming  transfer under  any part of the rule must be one whose name is  found entered  in the revenue records.  ’Me entry in  the  revenue record is an important piece of evidence on the question  of occupation  or  possession but it is not conclusive  of  the factors to be decided under rule 34C nor is it the law  that a subsequent valid order passed by a competent authority  or court  directing  the correction of the  entries  cannot  be taken into consideration. The  Court, therefore, set aside the judgment of  the  Chief Settlement  Commissioner and the Financial Commissioner  and remanded   the   matter  back  to   the   Chief   Settlement Commissioner for reconsideration by taking into account  the order  of  the Naib Tahsildar and the decree  of  the  Civil Court subject to such objections as might be raised. [178 E- F, 179 D-H, 180 A-E]

JUDGMENT: CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No. 1194 of 1976. Appeal by Special Leave from the Judgment and Order dated 26 8-1975  of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in  Civil  Writ No. 2559 of 1975. 178 S.   K. Bagga and (Mrs.) S. Bagga for the Appellant. A. S. Sohal,  for the Respondents. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by UNTWALIA, J.-This is an appeal by special leave.  The appel- lant’s  writ application challenging the order  dated  April 29,  1974 of the, Chief Settlement  Commissioner,  Jullundur and   order  dated  January  14,  1975  of   the   Financial Commissioner,  Taxation,  Punjab was dismissed by  the  High Court  of  Punjab & Haryana in limine on  August  26,  1975. Hence this appeal. The  appellant  applied  for  allotment  of  certain   Urban Agricultural  Land bearing various Khasra numbers  measuring 14 Kanals 17 Mar las.  It appears that the land indisputably is a part of the evacuee agricultural land situated in Urban areas  and  acquired  under section  12  of  the,  Displaced Persons   (Compensation  and  Rehabilitation)   Act,   1954- hereinafter  called the Act.  Chapter V-A of  The  Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Rules, 1955 (for brevity,  the  Rules),  is applicable to  such  lands.   The appellant approached the authority for transfer of the  land to him in accordance with Rule 34-C of the Rules.  It is not quite clear whether he claimed to be a lessee under the main provision  of  the  said Rule or  a  sub-lessee  within  the meaning of the proviso appended thereto.  But what is  clear is that the case proceeded before the various authorities on the footing that the appellant claimed to be a sub-lessee of the land. The  appellant  claimed to be in possession of the  land  in question continuously from before January 1, 1956,  although his  name  was not found recorded in the  Jamabandi  or  the Khasra  Girdawari.   He examined some witnesses  before  the Settlement  Officer who accepted their oral evidence and  by his  order dated August 21, 1969 (Annexure 1) held that  the appellant  was  entitled to get transfer of the  land  at  a price  to be fixed under Rule 348 of the Rules.   Thereupon, the  Settlement Commissioner, Jullundur by his  order  dated

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 4  

October 28, 1969 (Annexure 2) fixed the price of the land at Rs. 1,000/- per kanal.  Several years after, a reference was made  under  section  24 of the Act  by  the  Superintendent (Urban)  Rehabilitation  Department, Jullundur  for  setting aside  the order aforesaid of the Settlement  Officer.   The Chief  Settlement Commissioner by his order dated April  29, 1974  (Annexure 4) accepted the reference and set aside  the order.   The appellant went in revision under section 33  of the Act which was dismissed by the financial Commissioner by his  order dated January 14, 1975 (Annexure 5).  As  already stated the petitioner was unsuccessful in assailing the last two orders before the High Court.  It  appears  in or about the year 1954 the lessees  of  the land and cultivating it as such were Mahant Amar Nath,  Smt. Shanto Bai and others-some displaced persons.  The appellant ;also  claims  to  be  a  displaced  person.   The   lessees aforesaid,  perhaps, ceased to cultivate the land  and  left Jullundur.  The appellant claims that he has been 179 cultivating  the land continuously from about the year  1954 onwards.  On  the  1st  of  September,  1973  he  filed   an application  before the Revenue authority for correction  of the entry in Khasra Girdawari by recording his name therein. The  Naib-Tahsildar,  Jullundur by his order dated  the  6th February,  1974 (Annexure 3) directed the correction of  the Khasra Girdavarl for the period 1971-72 to Kharif 1973.  He, did  not direct the correction of the entry of  the  earlier period  as  he  could  not do  so  in  accordance  with  the departmental instructions.  The appellant filed Suit No. 185 of  1974  on the 9th of August, 1974 for correction  of  the entry  for the earlier period.  The lessees aforesaid  were impleaded as defendants in the suit.  In spite of service of summons,  they did not appear to contest it.  The  suit  was decreed  ex-parte  on the 31st March, 1975  by  Shri  Baldev Singh,  Sub-Judge, Second Class, Jullundur.  A copy  of  his judgment is Annexure 6. He declared the appellant as  tenant of  the  land  in  dispute  since  1954  and  directed   the correction of the.  Jamabandi entries. The Chief Settlement Commissioner in his impugned order  did not feel persuaded to place any reliance upon the  testimony of  the  witnesses  examined by  the  appellant  absence  of entries  in  the Revenue record viz. the  Jamabandi  or  the Khasra  Girdawari.  The Financial Commissioner was  also  of the  same  view.   Since he found the names  of  Amar  Nath, Shanto  Bai and others mentioned as cultivators, he did  not feel  persuaded  to accept the case of the  appellant.   The Naib  Tahsildar had corrected the entries in respect of  the later period by the time the Financial Commissioner happened to  pass  his  impugned order.  But he did  not  attach  any importance  to  it.   Finally, the  view  expressed  by  the Financial   Commissioner in his impugned order are in  these terms               "I  have  already held in several  cases  that               transfer   of  Urban  agricultural   land   is               strictly to be made on the basis of entries in               the  revenue record and no reliance is  to  be               placed  either  on  oral evidence  or  on  the               corrected  entries in the  Khasra  Girdawaris.               In the circumstances, I do not find any  force               in the petition which is dismissed in limine."               Rule 34C of the Rules reads as follows, :               "Where any land to which this Chapter  applies               has been leased to a displaced person and such               lands  consist of one or more Khasras  and  is               valued at Rs. 10,000/- or less, the land shall

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 4  

             be allotted to the lessee :               Provided that where any such land or any  part               thereof has been leased to a displaced  person               and  the sub-lessee has been in occupation  of               such  land or part thereof  continuously               from the 1st January, 1956, such land or  part               thereof, as the case may be, shall be allotted               to such sub-lessee." It is not the requirement of the rule that a person claiming transfer under any part, of the said rule must be one  whose name   is  found  entered  in  the  revenue  records.    The requirement of the rule is that the land to which Chapter VA applies  shall  be  allotted to the lessee if  it  has  been leased out to him and if he was a displaced person. 180 The  condition to be fulfilled under the proviso for a  sub- lessee  is his occupation of the land continuously from  the 1st  January, 1956.  The entry in the revenue records is  an important piece of evidence on the question of occupation or possession.   But it is not conclusive of the factors to  be decidedunder  Rule  34C.   Nor  is  it  the  law  that  a subsequent valid orderpassed by a competent authority  or court directing the correctionof the entries cannot  be taken into consideration.  Learned counselfor the  State, respondent no. 1 in this appeal, submitted that neither  the order  of  the Naib-Tahsildar nor the decree  of  the  Civil Court was legal and valid as it was not passed in accordance With  The  Punjab  Land  Revenue Act,  1887.   We  have  not examined  the correctness of this submission made on  behalf of  the State as, on the facts and in the  circumstances  of this  case  we felt persuaded to send back the case  to  the Chief  Settlement  Commissioner.   It will be  open  to  the parties to make such submissions or raise such objections as may  be available to them in law before the  said  authority when  the  case  goes back to it.   It  may  be  emphasised, however, that indisputably after the land became a  property acquired under section 12 of the Act the lessees came on the scene.   They  did not contest the claim  of  the  appellant either before the Naib Tahsildar or the Civil Court.  No one seems  to  have  claimed  that  the  State  or  any  of  its authorities  had  ever  come in possession of  the  land  in question.    In   such  a  situation   justice   require   a reconsideration  of the matter and a fresh decision  by  the authorities  concerned by taking into account the  order  of the Naib-Tahsildar and the decree of the Civil Court subject to  such objections as may be raised apropos their  validity and  on  reappraisal  of the oral evidence  adduced  by  the appellant before the Settlement Officer. In  the result, we allow the appeal, set aside the  impugned orders of the High Court, the Financial Commissioner and the Chief Settlement Commissioner and send back the case to  the Chief  Settlement Commissioner for a fresh disposal  of  the reference  in the light of this judgment.  There will be  no order as to costs. M.R.                             Appeal. dismissed. 181