Judgment High Court
Case Details
APURVA 2026.04.16 17:49 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document/judgment High Court, Chandigarh by the learned Financial Commissioner (Taxation), Punjab. 2. From a perusal of the paper book, the following facts emerge:- 2.2 Respondent No.5 – Sadhu Singh, had earlier submitted an application seeking transfer of rural evacuee land on the basis of his alleged possession since Rabi 1965. The said application was rejected by the competent authority. His challenge thereto by way of a writ petition, i.e. CWP No.404 of 1972, was dismissed by this Court vide order dated 25.11.1981 (Annexure P-1), holding that he had failed to establish his possession since Rabi 1965. 2.3 During pendency of the said writ petition, i.e. CWP No. 404 of 1972; Sadhu Singh (respondent No.5) submitted another application on 15.10.1974 again seeking transfer of land on the basis of his alleged
Legal Reasoning
APURVA 2026.04.16 17:49 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document/judgment High Court, Chandigarh possession since Rabi 1972. The said application, however, did not include the land presently in dispute. It was rejected by the Naib Tehsildar (Sales), Hoshiarpur, on 27.01.1975, on the ground that he was serving as a Government employee and, therefore, not eligible for such transfer. Although an appeal was preferred and allowed on technical grounds, resulting in remand. Respondent No.5 thereafter filed a revision petition under Section 15(1) of the Punjab Package Deal Properties (Disposal) Act, 1976, before the Financial Commissioner (Taxation), Punjab. The Financial Commissioner, vide the impugned order dated 07.11.1994 (Annexure P-5), APURVA 2026.04.16 17:49 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document/judgment High Court, Chandigarh allowed the revision, set aside the orders dated 18.03.1986, 06.10.1987, and 08.08.1990, and restored the Naib Tehsildar's order dated 23.10.1984, thereby upholding the allotment in favour of respondent No.5. The petitioner thereafter moved an application seeking recall of the order dated 07.11.1994 (Annexure P-5), which remained undecided. Consequently, the present writ petition came to be filed, in which notices were issued and dispossession of the petitioner was stayed. On 09.02.1996, the following order was passed by this Court:- “ 2.7 Thereafter on 09.04.1996, the following order was passed:- “ Adjourned to May 22,1996. On the last date of hearing an order was passed to the effect that it was expected of the Financial Commissioner to decide the matter finally. However, the case has not been decided as yet. The counsel for the petitioner has brought to our notice that the next date fixed in the case is May 10,1996 before the Financial Commissioner (Taxation). The learned Financial Commissioner is directed to decide the case on the aforementioned date. If for some unavoidable reasons if it is not possible to decide the case on the aforementioned date, he must decide the case on or before May 20, 1996.” 2.8 Subsequently the petitioner's application for setting aside this ex-parte order was dismissed by the successor Financial Commissioner vide order dated 30.05.1996 (Annexure P-9), accordingly the petitioner sought
Decision
amendment of the writ petition; which was allowed by this Court vide order APURVA 2026.04.16 17:49 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document/judgment High Court, Chandigarh dated 23.07.1996, leading to the present writ petition. 3. 4. Heard. The core issue in the present case revolves around the legality and propriety of the orders dated 07.11.1994 (Annexure P-5) and 30.05.1996 (Annexure P-9) passed by the learned Financial Commissioner (Taxation), Punjab. 4.1 A perusal of the record reveals that the suit land had already been validly allotted to the petitioner, being a war widow, as far back as in 1969. Pursuant to the said allotment, symbolic possession was delivered to her on 01.08.1969, followed by physical possession of the specific khasra numbers on 13.03.1982, and a conveyance deed was also executed in her favour on 10.11.1987. The Sales Commissioner (vide order dated 18.03.1986), the Chief Sales Commissioner (vide order dated 06.10.1987), and the Commissioner, Jalandhar Division (vide order dated 08.08.1990) had all concurrently held that once the land stood allotted and possession had been delivered to the petitioner, it ceased to form part of the surplus or evacuee pool and was, therefore, not available for any further allotment. 4.2 The Financial Commissioner, however, while allowing the revision petition filed by respondent No.5, ignored these settled and concurrent findings and took a contrary view. Such an approach is legally unsustainable. Once the petitioner had been put in lawful possession of the land in question and even the conveyance deed had been issued; the land vested in her absolutely and the same could not be allotted to respondent No.5. 4.3 It is further noticeable that respondent No.5 never challenged the petitioner’s allotment or the conveyance deed executed in her favour. APURVA 2026.04.16 17:49 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document/judgment High Court, Chandigarh Instead, he was merely pursuing his independent claim for transfer of land on the basis of his alleged possession since Rabi 1976; although a similar plea raised by respondent No.5 seeking allotment of land on the basis of his alleged possession since Crop Rabi-1965, had already been negatived in earlier proceedings. His prior claim asserting possession since Rabi 1965 had been dismissed by the competent authorities, and the said finding had attained finality upon dismissal of his writ petition (CWP No.404 of 1972) by this Court vide order dated 25.11.1981 (Annexure P-1). Having failed to establish his possession in those proceedings, his subsequent attempt to reopen the same issue by shifting the year of alleged possession was nothing but an abuse of process of law. Such a claim could not, by any stretch, nullify or invalidate the petitioner’s lawful allotment, which had long attained finality with the execution of conveyance deed in her favour. APURVA 2026.04.16 17:49 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document/judgment High Court, Chandigarh 7. The writ petition is, thus, allowed and as a consequence thereof, the respondents are restrained from dispossessing the petitioner from the land in dispute, i.e., Khasra No.50//19/2 (3-9) and 19/3 (3-2), measuring 6 Kanals-11 Marlas, situated in Village Patti, Tehsil and District Hoshiarpur. 8. 9. The instant writ petition is disposed of in the aforestated terms. All pending application(s), if any, shall also stand closed. APURVA 2026.04.16 17:49 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document/judgment High Court, Chandigarh