' The above petition has been filed by the petitioner against the order, dated 14th May 1976 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Sanghar by which the allotment of petitioner, dated 1 1 th June 1970, in respect of Survey Nos. 775/4 and 772/1, Deh Shandadpur, Taluka Shandadpur, District Sanghar were cancelled and the survey numbers in question were placed at the disposal of the Barrage Department for disposal in accordance with new Land Grant Policy.
2. According to learned counsel for petitioner, one Ruldo who was displaced person and had entitlement for allotment of agricultural land, had applied for allotment of agricultural land on the basis of his verified entitlement and pending disposal of such allotment, he died and as such the respondent No, 3 (whose name on his death was deleted from the above petition vide order, dated 16th December, 1978), respondents Nos. 4 and 5 were allotted Survey No, 775/4 measuring 4 acres and Survey No, 772/1 measuring 4 acres and Survey No, 775/3 measuring 4 acres situated in Deh Shandadpur, Taluka Shandadpur, District Sanghar in the year 1960, as the legal heirs of the deceased.
3. According to the learned Advocate for the petitioner that deceased Ruldo's entitlement was for 4 acres only on the basis of his own entitlement under the settlement scheme but the settlement authority allotted 4 acres of agricultural land to each of the respondents Nos. 3, 4 and 5 by allotment of the above survey numbers and'as such these allotments were in excess of the actual entitlement of deceased Ruldo.
4. In 1970 according to the learned advocate for the petitioner Deputy Settlement Commissioner, Sanghar issued notices to respondents Nos. 3, 4 and 5 to explain allotment of theexcess land to them. In these proceedings initiated by the Deputy Settlement Commissioner, Sanghar according to the learned counsel for the petitioner, respondent No, 4 Munjo gave statement in his personal capacity and as well as in his capacity as attorney of the respondents Nos. 3 and 5 in which he stated that they would surrender excess land of 8 acres allotted to them and further stated that they have no objection if the land so surrendered is allotted to the petitioner. These facts stated by the learned Advocate for the petitioner are based on Annexure `E' which is report of Rehabilitation Mukhtiarkar, Sanghar, dated 17th April 1975, addressed to the Additional Deputy Commissioner and Additional Settlement Commissioner (Land) Sanghar in respect of an application moved by respondents Nos. 3, 4 and 5.
5. That on account of the above proceedings, according to the learned Advocate for the petitioner, Survey Nos. 775/4 and 772/1 were allotted to the petitioner on 11th June, 1970, against his verified claim according to the Annexures B and B-1 and ultimatety on the basis of above allotment a clearance certificate and mutation orders were passed and the survey numbers in question were mutated, in favour of the petitioner on 12th August. 1970, as per Annexures D and D-1. According to the learned Advocate for the petitioner that as mentioned in Annexure E attached to the petition, the possession of these survey numbers was given to the petitioner under mashirnama and the petitioner on the basis of the said allotment continued to be in possession from 30th June 1970.
6. The learged Advocate for the petitioner stated that on 11th April 1974, respondents Nos. 3, 4 and 5 moved the Deputy Commissioner/Additional Settlement Commissioner (Land), Sanghar for cancellation of allotment of the petitioner on the ground that they were prior allottees. The learned counsel for the petitioner further stated that respondents Nos. 3, 4 and 5's application was forwarded by Deputy Commissioner/Additional Settlement Commissioner (Land), Sanghar to the Rehabilitation Mukhtiarkar for enquiry and report vide his order, dated 11th April 1974, and Rehabilitation Mukhtiarkar, Sanghar submitted his report on 17th April 1975, vide Annexure E.
7. The learned counsel for the petitioner further stated that on receipt of the above-mentioned report from the Rehabilitation Mukhtiarkar, Sanghar the Deputy Commissioner, Sanghar who by then has ceased to be the Additional Settlement Commissioner (Land), Sanghar on account of promulgation of Evacuee Property and Displaced Persons Laws Repeal Act, 1975, after hearing the petitioner and respondents Nos. 3, 4 and 5 as mentioned in his order, dated 15th May 1976, cancelled the allotment of Survey Nos. 775/4 and 772/1 in favour of the petitioner on the grounds mentioned in the said order and placed the said survey numbers at the disposal of the Barrage Department for disposal in accordance with the new land grant policy. The main reason for cancellation of the allotment of the two survey numbers in favour of the petitioner as given in order, dated 14th May, 1976, was that said survey numbers were allotted to the petitioner without cancellation of the previous allotment orders in favour A of respondents Nos. 3, 4 and 5 by competent Rehabilitation Authority and further as the petitioner who was directed to produce original of the copy of Q. P. R. And M. R. V. Certificates on the basis of which his entitlement was considered in the allotment of the survey numbers in question, failed to do so and as such the genuineness of his entitlement to the allotment was not verifiable and further it is mentioned in the said order that the petitioner has been proved in other two cases to have sold out evacuee land on the basis of ficticious allotment and power of attorney in Deb Lutko and Bhellare of Taluka Sanghar and Taluka Shandadpur, respectively. As far as respondents Nos. 3, 4 and 5's request for restoration of their allotment was concerned, the learned Deputy Commissioner, Sanghar came to the conclusion that on the basis of entitlement of deceased Ruldo, they were jointly entitled to 4 acres only and as such their request for restoration of their allotment in respect of Survey Nos. 775/4 and 772/1 cannot be allowed.
8. The learned counsel for the petitioner has challenged the above order mainly on the ground that no show-cause notice before cancellation of the allotments of the petitioner in respect of Survey Nos. 775/4 and 772/1 was given to the petitioner and as such he was not given opportunity to put up his case fairly. The learned counsel for the petitioner has further urged that the hearing granted to the petitioner by the learned Deputy Commissioner, Sanghar cannot be considered as proper hearing, as the petitioner was brought for the said hearing directly from ,the Police custody and as such was unable to produce any documents that were asked for and was not in frame of mind to put up his case before the learned Deputy Commissioner, Sanghar and as such on these grounds alone he urged that the order, dated 14th May, 1976, of the learned Deputy Commissioner, Sanghar is liable to be set aside as the same is in violation of principles of natural justice and the case be remanded back to him for disposal on merits after affording opportunities to the petitioner as well as the respondents Nos. 4 and 5. On this submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Advocate for respondents Nos. 4 and 5 stated that if the order in question was set aside and case was remanded back for disposal on merits as suggested by the learned counsel for the petitioner, he would have no objection.
9. In view of the above statements of both the learned counsel for the petitioner and respondents Nos. 4 and 5 and, further as I find from the order, dated 14th May, 1976. That no show-cause notice for cancellation of the allotment of the petitioner was issued to him prior to hearing and further as the petitioner was brought for the hearing in question from the Police custody and as such as asserted by him he was not in a position B to produce the original documents demanded by the Deputy Commissioner. Sanghar, I find this is a fit case where order. Dated 14th May 1976, of the learned Deputy Commissioner, Sanghar be set aside and the matter be remanded back to him for disposal on merits after affording the opportunities to the petitioner as well as the respondents Nos. 4 and 5.
10. Accordingly I set aside order, dated 14th May 1976, of the learned Deputy Commissioner, Sanghar and remand back the case to him for disposal on merits after issuing show-cause notices to the petitioner as well as the respondents Nos. 4 and 5 for cancellation of their respective allotments and after giving personal hearing to the parties.
11. In view of the circumstances and facts of the above matter. I would pass no orders as to costs.