S.A.MANAN, J.- This constitutional petition is directed against order dated10.5.1975 of the A.D.C(C)
Addl. Settlement Commissioner (L) Gujrat dismissing the revision petition of petitioner and further holding that the disputed allotment was made to the respondent .On the basis of compromise made by the present petitioner.
2. Briefly stated, disputed land comprising khasra Nos. 75,76,79 and 80 measuring about 9 kanals 2 marlas situate in village Tibi SangOwal Tehsil and District Gujrat was allotted in favour of petitioner on 4.4.1973 whereafter respondent filed revision petition which was disposed of on 16.2.1974 in terms of a compromise where the statements of petitioner and respondent were recorded and the former surrendered the disputed land to the extent of 25 units. On the basis of order dated 16.2.1974, the diputed land was allotted by the Tehsildar vide order dated 11.4.1974. This in fact was implementation of earlir order whereby the petitioner surrendered the disputed land. Petitioner filed revision petition against order dated 11.4.1974 and the same was dismissed vide impugned order dated10.5.1975 holding that"as the petitioner surrendered his right of his own free will in the court of Addl. Settlement Commissioner in favour of respondent, he is estopped from challenging the allotment. The implementation has been made in accordance with the order of Addl.
Settlement Commissioner (L). The application is, therefore, dismissed. Parties to bear their own costs."
3. Learned counsel in support of this writ petition submitted that although the petitioner has surrendered the disputed land but before its allotment in favour of respondent, Tehsildar/ A.S.C.(L) was to satisfy about the entitlement of respondent. According to him the units were transferred vide order dated 11.4.1974 of the Tehsildar from Mouza Ditowal to Sangowal and on the same'day, the allotment was made in favour of respondent. Learned counsel submits that this was not the spirit of order dated 16.2.1974. Further submitted that the units of respondent should have been pending in village Sangowal at the time when order dated 16.2.1974 is passed. This is the precise grievance of petitioner.
4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and am of view that there is no force in the plea of petitioner respondents have revision petition and there a compromise was effected and petitioner surrendered the disputed land. Thereafter, if there was any irregularity in the transfer of units in the name of respondent the petitioner cannot raise any valid objection to it. The first and foremost question would arise if the petitioner had willingly entered into compromise and surrendered the disputed land. There is no dispute about this fact. Additionally learned counsel has not assailed the entitlement of respondent for the allotment of disputed area as against his 25 units. Learned counsel for respondent submits that assessment circle of Mouza Ditowal and Sangowal is the same and the transfer of units from one village to another one was only a formality. Whatever may be the case, no material has been placed on the record by the petitioner that the disputed land has been allotted in favour of respondent without any entitlement. Infact the petitioner is not disowning the order dated 16.2.1974 whereby he entered into a compromise and surrendered the disputed land. In these circumstances, learned Addl. Settlement Commissioner has rightly held that there was no legal infirmity in the implementation of order dated 16.2.1974 in favour of respondent. The allotment has been made in favour of respondent for more than three decades on the basis of compromise and no case is made out for any interference in the impugned order.
Resultantly, there is no merit in this writ petition which is dismissed with no order as to costs.