Punjab-Haryana High Court
Nathu Ram vs The Director on 23 November, 2012
Author: Ranjit Singh
Bench: Ranjit Singh
Civil Writ Petition No. 18878 of 2010 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Civil Writ Petition No. 18878 of 2010
Date of decision : 23.11.2012
Nathu Ram
.....Petitioner
VERSUS
The Director, Rehabilitation Department, New Delhi and others
....Respondents
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH
1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement?
2. To be referred to the Reporters or not?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?
Present: Mr. Ish Puneet Singh, Advocate for
Ms. Jatinder Jit Kaur, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Ms. Monica Chhibber Sharma, DAG Punjab
for the State
****
RANJIT SINGH, J.
Allotment of land was made to one Hola Ram as per Khatauni Paimaish of the year 1962-1963 in lieu of land left by him in Pakistan. The petitioner claims that area measuring 152 kanals 6 marlas was allotted to Hola Ram father of the petitioner. The land was assessed at the rate of Rs. 45,000/- at that time, in lieu of land left by him in Pakistan. The petitioner, however states that the claim given vide Claim No. 803 dated 06.10.2002 was issued on 28.10.1962. Despite the same having been reflected in the revenue record and the allotment having been so made, the possession of the land was not handed over to said Hola Ram. Thereafter, what transpired and what action the petitioner took to claim possession of the land and how it was declined to petitioner is not forthcoming in Civil Writ Petition No. 18878 of 2010 2 any manner.
Reference is then made to amendment made by the legislation in the year 2009. The petitioner claims that he contested his case since 1962 and went from pillar to post to get the possession of the land when this notification was issued.
Some of the claimants in the meantime had filed Civil Writ petition No. 14385 of 2005 and it was decided that the cases of persons will be decided who are the allottees and whose cases are pending. The petitioner states that irregularities were committed from 1969 to 1972 and number of properties which were allotted to the allottees who came from Pakistan were given by illegal means to the persons who were not allottees and were not entitled as per law. This according to the petitioner becomes clear from Annexure P-4 and the revenue records Annexures P-5 to P-17. The petitioner and other persons brought number of irregularities to the notice of Financial Commissioner Revenue but proper enquiry has not been made in regard to the fact that Khuda Ram has sold approximately 400 acres of land by illegal means including land of the father of the petitioner. Petitioner would allege that land mafia has illegally taken the possession by wrong entries in the revenue record and the allottees who came to India in 1947 are fighting for their claim for the last 66 years. They have not been able to get possession. It is alleged that the land has been sold by the land mafia.
Notice in this case was issued. The State has filed reply. By way of preliminary objection it is stated that the writ petition is filed without showing any specific allotment of village Civil Writ Petition No. 18878 of 2010 3 Shamdo, Tehsil Rajpura on any specific allotments. As per the reply, no specific order has been challenged by the petitioner. As such, the writ petition is termed quite vague and uncertain and as such the same is liable to be dismissed.
As per the State, petitioner has no right to invoke writ jurisdiction of this Court. The petitioner is stated to be failed litigant. The petitioner had also earlier filed a petition before the Sales Commissioner and the said petition was dismissed on 14.02.2010. Copy of this order is annexed with Annexure R-1. The petitioner could challenge this order before the Financial Commissioner revenue which he did not do. As per the State, present petition is also liable to be dismissed because of concealment of facts.
The petitioner has not placed on record allotment of land in his name in village Shamdo, Tehsil Rajpura. Only Annexure P-1 has been placed on record which is Raqba Khatoni Paimaish. No order of allotment of land in his favour is on record. The petitioner has also statedly concealed the factum of dismissal of his petition for allotment of this land (Annexure R-1). It is, accordingly stated that the petitioner has not approached this Court with clean hands.
Even allegation of manipulating the record of copies which are placed is made against the petitioner. It is stated that the coloured photocopies of Khatoni Pamaish and resolution register of consolidation of holdings are attached as Annexure R-2 and R-3. It would reveal the manipulation of the revenue records by the petitioner.
It is, however, pointed out that as per procedure followed Civil Writ Petition No. 18878 of 2010 4 by Rehabilitation Department the persons who have migrated from Pakistan leaving their holdings over there were to be allotted lands in India. For that purpose initially temporary allotments were made to them and even by going through their papers securitizing for permanent allotment is to be made and a Sanad allotment is issued to such persons on the basis of the value of the claims. As per the record available the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioner Hola Ram was allotted 66 kanals 8 marlas of land in village Shamdo and the said land was duly allotted to him as per the proceedings book of consolidation of holding. Said Hola Ram has further sold this land after allotment and a mutation thereof was sanctioned in the name of purchaser. In this regard, reference is made to Annexure R-5 which is on record.
I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner. He has primarily based submission that there is a need of enquiry to find out as to how the land was allotted to unauthorized persons and claim of the persons who were entitled to such allotment had been declined. The petitioner has filed the present petition with vague averment and there is no proper averment made. The allotment which was done in favour of the petitioner was in the year 1962. No action was taken by the petitioner to take possession of this land in case it was so allotted. This appears to be a misleading submission made by the petitioner in the writ petition. As disclosed in the reply, some portion of land allotted to Hola Ram had been sold. It is accordingly, shown that the petitioner or his predecessor had taken possession of the land and Civil Writ Petition No. 18878 of 2010 5 now have only approached this Court to show greed.
There is no merit in the present writ petition, therefore, the same is dismissed.
November 23, 2012 ( RANJIT SINGH ) reena JUDGE