JUDGMENT
Rajesh Balia, J.
1. The brief facts giving rise to the aforesaid petition may be stated as under:
2. The petitioners allege that they were all displaced persons from Pakistan and their claim to compensation was verified by the Compensation Officer on 27.1.1953, for an area of 129.14.6 standard acres. In satisfaction of that claim, the petitioners were allotted an area of 155 bighas 9 biswas, in village Majidsura, Tehsil-Bhadra, somewhere in the year 1956. No order of allotment has been placed on record in spite of the directions of this Court on the ground the same is not available with the petitioners. However, thereafter it appears that there was complaint that the verification to which the petitioners lay claims was not correct, therefore, the proceedings were again initiated against the petitioners for verificatiomaf the claim and the Chief Settlement Commissioner vide his order dated September 30, 1963; rejected the claim of the petitioners. The order of the Chief Settlement Commissioner has not been filed, which could have throw light as to on what grounds the verification which was alleged to have been made in 1953 was found to be wrong. It appears that the petitioners have further prosecuted the matter after the order of the Chief Settlement Commissioner; but the petitioners have chosen not to produce any orders in that record or details of the proceedings that took place thereafter. But, he rest contended by stating that the proceedings ultimately terminated against the petitioners. It is alleged by the petitioners that while proceedings aforesaid were going on and order was made allowing the petitioners to retain the land on payment of Rs. 30,000/-, against which the petitioners proceeded to pay a sum of Rs. 6,571/-. Presumbly this offer was made to the petitioners in terms of Rule 63 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Rules, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as Ithe Rules of 1955). However, the order demanding Rs. 30,000/- and details about the same have not been furnished. The petitioner was called upon by notice dated 10.2.1975 by the Managing Officer to deposit the balance amount. The petitioners apparently were not willing to deposit the balance amount and requested the Managing Officer to wait until the proceedings regarding allotment on account of verification was pending. After waiting for about 6 months, by order dated 6.8.1975, the allotment in favour of the petitioners was finally cancelled. The appeal against the order dated 6.8.1975 was also rejected by the order dated 23.2.1979 and Revision against the order of the Revenue Appellate Authority by the petitioner was also rejected by the Chief Settlement Commissioner on 11.3.1980. These three orders respectively Exhibits 1, 2 and 3 are in challenge before this Court in the petition.
3. There is no dispute between the parties also that after the allotment in favour of the petitioners on the basis of verified claim was cancelled, the respondents No. 6 and 7 were allotted land out of the disputed land, which, undisputedly; form part of the compensation-pool in November, 1976. The respondents No. 6 was allotted 7 bighas and 10 biswas and, respondent No. 7 was allotted 40 bighas of land, and they were put in possession soon after the allotment. While the petitioners have averred in para 9 that he has effected sale of 10 bighas and 7 biswas of land to Ram Kumar, Hemraj, Rampal and Ranjeet on 15.10.1973 and 13 bighas 2 biswas to Shri Sultan; before the cancellation of allotment was made-in sub-para II/c of para 11, it has clearly been averred that except two pieces of land which have been allotted to Shri Chandra Bhan and Shri Ratanlal (respondents No. 6 and 7), rest of the land continued to be in possession of vendees of the petitioners.
4. A preliminary objection has been raised by learned Counsel for the respondents that it is apparent from the pleadings itself, that the petitioners had been transferee of the land in question before filing of the writ petition and they were left with no title for protection of which they could prosecute the petition. They, therefore, have no locus standi to maintain the writ petition.
5. The second preliminary objection was also raised by learned Counsel for the respondents that the petitioner has not deliberately produced material documents and has also not produced the letter of allotment in spite of directions by this Court, and, this conduct of the petitioners also disentitled them from any relief under Article 226 of the Constitution.
6. Having carefully considered the arguments raised before me, I am of the opinion that the preliminary objections raised on behalf of the respondents merits acceptance. The petitioners have un-equivocally stated in his petition that they have sold certain land, before the cancellation of allotment has taken place and they also stated in no un-certain terms that out of the total disputed land, either the allottees of 1976 are in possession or the vendees are in possession. In there circumstances, if the petitioner had any title to the land, they had already passed it to the vendees, before the filing of the writ petition and were left with no interest in the land in question, so as to prosecute in this petition. If they did not have any title, which they could pass to the vendees; then also, the writ petition must fail. In that view of the matter, that the petitioners have no locus standi to maintain this writ petition on account of their having already parted with their title, before filing of the writ petition; the petition must fail. That apart, it is also apparent that the petitioners have not placed on record all the material facts. They did not place on record the orders passed by which their claim to allotment in view of verified claim, was rejected. Those orders were relevant to show the conduct of the petitioners with reference to securing allotment of the land in the first instance against the verified claim. The petitioners have also not produced original order of allotment of the land, which is alleged to have been made in 1956 and the original order of allotment on verification of the claim, alleged to have been made in 1953, in support of his allegations made in that regard. The letter of allotment was not produced even after directions of this Court and the petitioners rest contended by making a request for calling record from the Union of India, but his additional affidavit even does not discloses that they made any effort to obtain the original allotment letter by securing a certificate from the relevant office of the respondents to comply with the directions this Court. The petition lacks in material particulars also. In view of aforesaid, the second preliminary objection by learned Counsel for the respondents is also upheld.
7. Since I have upheld both the preliminary objection against the petitioner, I refrain from expressing any opinion on merits of the case, though the matter was argued by learned Counsel for the petitioner.
8. The petition is dismissed, with no orders as to costs.