' This is the third round of litigation. Petitioner's claim was initially verified for 1096 units. He was allotted land for 882 units and 215 units all told 1097 units on 3rd March; 1953 and 28th August, 1953 respectively. A checking party found that the petitioner was entitled to 651 units on 2.8th August, 1960. Consequently the Assistant Rehabilitation Commissioner (Lands) cancelled the land worth 233 units on 21st September, 1963 and allotted 186 units therefrom to some persons who are not party to these proceedings. The petitioner filed an appeal while this was pending, respondents filed an application that not only 233 units but 214 units should also have been cancelled. The Deputy Rehabilitation Commissioner rejected the petitioner's appeal and accepted the application of the respondents vide two separate orders dated 1st July 1963, the result being that he held that the petitioner's allotment was liable to be cancelled for 447 units and since 186 units had already been withdrawn and allotted to someone, he directed the cancellation of remaining 261 units and their allotment to the respondents, The orders of the Deputy Rehabilitation Commissioner dated 1st July, 1963 were challenged through a revision petition and the learned Additional Rehabilitation Commissioner held that in view of fresh instructions the petitioner was entitled to purchase the occupancy area and that he should also be given 20% Beshi units as permissible under the instructions. He set aside the order of the Deputy Rehabilitation Commissioner (Land) and remanded the case for fresh decision. This is vide order dated 21st September, 1963. Petitioner's revision petition was filed on the ground that his claim was still under verification. This order is dated 27th May, 1966. The second revision petition was not entertained for the same reason vide order dated 9th November, 1976. The petitioner challenged the orders through Writ Petition No, 1505/R-66. The petition was dismissed on 23rd October. 1974 and the petitioner's Civil Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No, 133 of 1975 was dismissed on 26th May, 1975. The Deputy Settlement Commissioner took up the matter and gave effect to the orders of the Deputy Rehabilitation Commissioner vide order dated 28th March, 1975. This was challenged by the petitioner through Writ Petition No, 485/R/75 which was accepted on the ground that the order in the field was that of Additional Rehabilitation Commissioner which had remanded the case for fresh decision on 21st September, 1963 and the Deputy Settlement Commissioner was in error in relying on the earlier orders of the Deputy Rehabilitation Commissioner dated 1st July, 1963 which had been set aside on revision by the Additional Rehabilitation Commissioner on 21st September, 1963. The case was remanded for fresh decision vide order dated 11th June, 1976. The respondents challenged the order through Civil Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No, 731 of 1976 which was dismissed on 5th December, 1979. In pursuance of the remand order of the Additional Rehabilitation Commissioner dated 21st September, 1963 and the order passed in Writ Petition No, 485/R-75, the Assistant Commissioner/Deputy Settlement Commissioner took up the matter. He got the claim of the petitioner re-verified which came down from 1097 to 651 units. The allotment was for 1097 units.
Taking into account earlier cancellation of 186 units, he directed further cancellation of 261 units and these were ordered to be allotted in favour of the respondents. This is vide order dated 12th September, 1981. This has been challenged by the petitioner through the above-titled Constitutional Petition, Learned counsel for the petitioner had contended that the initial verification and allotments were made by the authorities and the petitioner had committed fraud or misrepresentation. Therefore, the verification of the claim and the -allotment in lieu thereof could not be reduced. It is secondly contended that the petitioner was entitled to purchase the excess allotment of 261 units. Thirdly, it is contended that the respondents were not entitled to be treated as informers and to allotment. Lastly, that the respondents had no pending units against which the allotment could be made.
2. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents has submitted that since the petitioner's claim had been reduced and rightly so the petitioner is not entitled to retain the excess allotment. He is not entitled to purchase the land because the same had been allotted to the answering respondents as informers and they have their pending units.
3. It is unfortunate that for a small area litigation has been going on for the last 20 years. The petitioner and the respondents are petty claimants and their allotments are small too. If they had not been entangled in the litigation, the petitioner may not have been disturbed. The order which holds the field is that of the Additional Rehabilitation Commissioner dated 21st September, 1963 in which it had been held that there were instructions entitling the petitioner to purchase the occupancy area and that he should be given 20% Beshi units as permissible under the instructions.
In the final order of the Deputy Settlement Commissioner dated 12th September, 1981 impugned in the petition, the Assistant Commissioner/Deputy Settlement Commissioner has come to the conclusion that according to the latest instructions the petitioner was not entitled to purchase the excess area. Moreover, for occupancy area units have got to be adjusted. Therefore, in view of the facts that the respondents are also small claim-holders and have little allotment and the previous litigation, the petitioner cannot be allowed to purchase the excess allotment in preference to the respondents. However, it is obvious that the excess allotment can only be allotted to the respondents in lieu of their pending units. If the contention of the petitioner be correct that the respondents have no pending units, then he should apply to the relevant authority who will look into the matter carefully and allowing beshi in accordance with the final order of the Additional Rehabilitation Commissioner dated 21st September, 1963 to the petitioner, the excess allotment shall be made to the respondents to the extent of their pending units. If still some allotment is left that shall be sold to the petitioner in accordance with the latest Settlement Scheme No, IX. Subject to these observations, I do not think that the petitioner is entitled to any other relief. The petition is accordingly dismissed but in the circumstances,, the parties shall bear their own costs.