TMI Blog1959 (4) TMI 38X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... be briefly summarised in order to understand how this controversy arose. One Ragha Ram, who is dead and is now represented by the respondents, was a temporary allottee in village Fatoewal, district Hoshiarpur. He was also allotted some land on a quasi-permanent basis in village Budhewal. Of the appellants, Nil Kanth and Bindraban were sitting allottees in village Budhewal. It seems that they along with other three appellants were given quasi-permanent allotments in various other villages of Hoshiarpur district. All five of them applied to the Director-General Rehabilitation (Rural) praying that they be all restored to village Budhewal. On July 3, 1950, the Director-General made an order to the effect that these persons were sitting allotte ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ight be fitted in village Fatoowal, which adjoined village Budhewal. On this an order was passed summoning the parties for May 6, 1952. On that date Bachittar Singh filed a written-statement and again objected to their being ousted from village Budhewal. Thereupon an order was passed that the persons affected had been informed and the order of the Director-General Rehabilitation should be implemented. The contention of the appellants is that it was on this date, (namely, May 6, 1952) that a further order was passed by the Deputy Commissioner, who was in charge of rehabilitation, cancelling the allotment in favour of the respondents in village Budhewal. It further appears that on the same day, apparently after the above order had been passed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... not require the ejectment of any allottee; and as there was no area available in village Budhewal, the present appellants could not be accommodated there. The Deputy Commissioner agreed with this and it seems that the order passed on May 6, 1952, was overlooked. The appellants then apparently represented the matter to the Deputy Commissioner who went into the file and was of opinion that there was some mischief in the office' and that explanations of the officials concerned should be called for and the orders already passed in favour of the present appellants on May 6, 1952, implemented. The matter was gone into again and on September 11, 1952, the Deputy Commissioner cancelled his order of July 15, 1952 and ordered that the Director-Ge ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Deputy Custodian General was a question of fact, namely, whether the order of cancellation had been made before July 22, 1952 or after it. The Deputy Custodian General came to the conclusion that the order of allotment in favour of the respondents had been cancelled on May 6, 1952 by the Deputy Commissioner, though that order was not actually available on the record. He gave certain reasons in support of the conclusion and eventually dismissed the revision filed by the present respondents. 4. The respondents then filed a writ application in the Punjab High Court and their principal contention was that there was no order of the Deputy Commissioner on the record of the case dated May 6, 1952, cancelling the allotment and that in fac ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... High Court by a writ of certiorari to interfere with the order of the Deputy Custodian General, unless it found that there was an error of law apparent on the record. He submits that in this case there was no error of law apparent on the record so far as the decision of the Deputy Custodian General is concerned and that the decision was merely on a question of fact and even if the High Court did not agree with the view taken by the Deputy Custodian General it should not have interfered with a mere wrong decision on a question of fact. 7. It appears from the judgment of the learned Single Judge that the High Court was also aware of this position and referred to the decision of this Court in Hari Vishnu Kamath v. Syed Ahmed Ishaque, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... available on the record; but we cannot forget that the order of September 18, 1952, does not cancel the allotment of the respondents in village Budhewal in terms, as for example is the case with the order of June 17, 1952 cancelling the allotment of Nil Kanth appellant. We are of opinion that the Deputy Custodian General was entitled to take into account all the reports, proposals and orders appearing on the record and if on a review of these he came to the conclusion that an order of cancellation must have been passed on May 6, 1952, though it did not appear on the record, it cannot be said that this conclusion of fact was based on no evidence or on no relevant evidence. This Court had occasion again to consider the question of the extent ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
