Punjab-Haryana High Court
Dalip Kaur Wd/O Swaran Singh Resident Of ... vs The State Of Punjab Through Financial ... on 10 January, 2012
Author: K. Kannan
Bench: K. Kannan
CWP No.392 of 1988(O&M) [1]
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
CWP No.392 of 1988(O&M)
Date of Decision: 10.01.2012
Dalip Kaur wd/o Swaran Singh resident of Village Bholth Tehsil
and District Kapurthala.
... Petitioner
Versus
The State of Punjab through Financial Commissioner (Regenue)
& Secretary to Government Punjab, Rehabilitation Department,
Chandigarh and another.
... Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN
Present:Mr. Viney Saini, Advocate fore
Mr. G.S. Nagra, Advocate,
for the petitioner.
Mr. S.S. Sahu, AAG, Punjab,
for respondent No.1.
Mr. R.S. Rangpuri, Advocate,
for LRs of respondent No.2.
*****
1.Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to
see the judgment? YES
2.To be referred to the reporters or not? YES
3.Whether the judgment should be reported in the
digest? YES
K. KANNAN, J. (Oral)
1. The petitioner, who is a 'war widow' and who had been allotted 10 acres of land, found that a portion of the property allotted to her, had been claimed by another person as a displaced person, who had been previously allotted the said property under the Displaced Persons (Compensation & Rehabilitation) Act, 1954 (for short, 'the Act, 1954'). Out of the 10 acres of land, the property claimed by the displaced person CWP No.392 of 1988(O&M) [2] was situated in village Bhadas. After the allotment had been done, at a time when it was found by the authorities that it had been made in excess, a cancellation order came to be issued but the displaced person had filed an application for purchase of the said property at the market rate. The fortunes of the war widow and the displaced person were ever vacillating by successive authorities reversing each others decision till the case came to be decided through the Financial Commissioner, which is impugned in the writ petition.
2. The case really involves an inter se dispute between a war widow, who had been allotted the property under Rule 4 of the Punjab Package Deals Property (Disposal) Act & Rules, 1976 (for short, 'the Act, 1976') and a right of a person, who had been allotted the property as a "displaced person" and who claims a sale by negotiation of the cancelled land under Rule 4-B of the Act, 1976. At the time when the allotment had been made under Rule 4 of the Act, 1976 to the war widow, it is an admitted case that an application for sale of the property by the displaced person had been pending. In the manner of rejecting the petitioner's claim as a war widow and upholding the claim of the displaced person, who had obtained an excess allotment, the Financial Commissioner took note of two aspects: (i) Chapter IV regarding the sale of excess land to allottees/vendees was introduced in the Act, 1976 only on 20th March, 1985; (ii) the Settlement Commissioner, whose order had been a subject of challenge before him had actually procured the details of other lands available in Raipur Pirbux where the war widow had already been allotted other lands out of an extent of 10 acres of land. He reasoned that an allottee under Rule 4 of the Act, 1976 cannot dictate what property shall be specifically allotted to her, especially when the displaced person was claiming that CWP No.392 of 1988(O&M) [3] he had been in possession of the said property by virtue of the allotment from the year 1950. He had claimed to have made improvements on the land and his rights must have been taken as preferential to the claims of the war widow under Rule 4.
3. The counsel appearing for the petitioner would contend that a person, who has secured an excess allotment, had no vested right to secure a sale of the property under the relevant Rules. The learned counsel would rely on the judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Chief Settlement Commissioner (Rural), Punjab and another v. Ram Singh and others, AIR 1987 SC 1834 that dealt with the issue of whether an excess allottee could obtain a vested right to secure a sale in his favour in term of Rule 73(2)(ii) of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Rules, 1955. The Court held that such a vested right did not exist.
4. It must be noticed that Hon'ble the Supreme Court was dealing with a claim of a displaced person, who was insisting on a right of purchase under Rule 73 and was not dealing with the effect of Rule 4-B, which had been brought by an amendment introduced in the year 1985. Again, Hon'ble the Supreme Court was not dealing with the inter se claims of two classes of persons making the respective claims requiring consideration of a matter of preference between them. This aspect had been brought in different other situations before this Court through other decisions. Dealing with inter se claim of a person, who was a "displaced person" to consider his claim for transfer in recognition of rights informed through press notes issued by the Central Government and who was unsatisfied claimant, a Division Bench of this Court held in Bishan Singh and others v. Chief Settlement Commissioner and others, 1973 PLJ 183 that the persons falling in the categories covered by the CWP No.392 of 1988(O&M) [4] Press-notes of 1962 have an enforceable legal right and have a right of consideration above the claims of unsatisfied claimants. In yet another judgment titled Shankar Singh v. Chief Settlement Commissioner etc., 1975 Current Law Journal 490, this Court was considering the issue of obtaining a transfer to an allottee of excess land previously made in the year 1962 when the Court held that such a right would obtain in his favour and a long continuous possession as an allottee would be entitled to a favourable consideration. In a given situation when the claim was made by an excess allottee within time and specific rules had been framed to address such claims, the decision of the Financial Commissioner upholding the claim of the excess allottee and relegating to the war widow a compensation for shortfall of the land by allotment of some other property in the same village where she had been allotted other lands, the Commissioner was actually keeping the scales even and providing for appropriate equities. The Commissioner found that the excess allottee was actually a displaced person, who was holding the property since 1950 and who claimed that he had made improvements in the property. The war widow was getting a first allotment and admittedly, it was not the whole property that was lost. Only one item of the property in another village, which had been in the possession of the displaced person was denied to her and he was upholding the decision of the lower Authority, who had identified some other property that was fit for allotment to the war widow. I do not find any error in the approach of the Financial Commissioner to subject the same for intervention in this writ petition. The impugned order is maintained and the writ petition is dismissed.
5. The petitioner's entitlement of the shortfall in the land CWP No.392 of 1988(O&M) [5] by an independent allotment shall be secured in her favour as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of 3 months from the date of receipt of copy of this order.
JANUARY 10, 2012 ( K. KANNAN ) Rajan JUDGE