1970 (9) TMI 113 - SC - Indian Laws

Supreme Court Upholds Decision Dismissing Appeal with Costs. Alleged Gallantry Award Unsupported. Minister's Order Verified.

The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision, dismissing the appeal with costs. The appellant's claim to land based on an alleged gallantry award ... - Issues Involved:1. Validity of the appellant's claim to land based on alleged gallantry award.2. Jurisdiction of the Rehabilitation Minister in canceling the allotment.3. Genuineness of the letters produced by the appellant.4. Adequacy of evidence before the Commissioner.5. Appellant's entitlement to land based on additional evidence.Detailed Analysis:1. Validity of the appellant's claim to land based on alleged gallantry award:The appellant, a military personnel, claimed that he was granted a gallantry award in 1947, which conferred land in Samundri, Lyallpur District, now part of Pakistan. He produced two letters dated February 14, 1947, and April 10, 1947, allegedly issued by the Deputy Commissioner, Lyallpur, to the Tahsildar, Samundri, indicating the allotment. However, the Commissioner found that the revenue records of Lyallpur District did not contain any entry of the appellant having taken possession of the said land, and the original letters were not produced.2. Jurisdiction of the Rehabilitation Minister in canceling the allotment:The allotment of about 26 standard acres of land to the appellant was challenged by respondent 3 and subsequently canceled by the Rehabilitation Minister, Government of Punjab, on April 14, 1960. The order was deemed unauthorized as the Minister had no jurisdiction to pass it. The Chief Settlement Commissioner was directed to verify the legal position regarding the allotment.3. Genuineness of the letters produced by the appellant:The Commissioner re-examined the case and reaffirmed the earlier decision to cancel the allotment, citing several reasons:- The military authorities' list did not show the appellant as a recipient of any gallantry award.- The Officer Incharge Records confirmed that there was no record of such an award.- The copies of letters produced by the appellant had discrepancies, such as typewritten signatures and incorrect dates, which cast doubt on their authenticity.- The absence of a certificate from the Indian High Commission in Pakistan to verify the attested copies further questioned their genuineness.- The Commissioner concluded that the copies were forged documents.4. Adequacy of evidence before the Commissioner:The High Court dismissed the appellant's writ petition, rejecting the contention that the Commissioner had gone beyond the High Court's order of remand. The High Court held that there was legal evidence before the Commissioner to support the finding that the copies relied on by the appellant were not genuine. The principle applied was that if some reasons given by a Tribunal are extraneous but others are relevant and sufficient, the decision would not be vitiated.5. Appellant's entitlement to land based on additional evidence:The appellant was allowed to lead additional evidence to establish his claim. However, the High Court found that:- No record showed an award for meritorious service.- Awards for meritorious service were recorded in the sheet-roll and announced in the Government Gazette, neither of which was done in the appellant's case.- Awards for meritorious service did not include land grants, only medals.- The appellant had not served the requisite 18 years for such an award and had a service record with multiple punishments.Based on the evidence, the High Court concluded that the appellant was not entitled to the land, affirming the Commissioner's decision to cancel the allotment and the permanent rights acquired by the appellant.Conclusion:The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's judgment, dismissing the appeal with costs. The appellant's claim based on the alleged gallantry award was found to be unsupported by genuine evidence, and the jurisdictional challenge to the Rehabilitation Minister's order was deemed irrelevant as the Commissioner had independently verified and reaffirmed the cancellation of the allotment.