Punjab-Haryana High Court
Gulshan Rai Bakshi vs The State Of Haryana And Others on 14 September, 2012
Author: Ranjit Singh
Bench: Ranjit Singh
CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.2549 OF 2011 :{ 1 }:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
DATE OF DECISION: SEPTEMBER 14, 2012
Gulshan Rai Bakshi
.....Petitioner
VERSUS
The State of Haryana 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. Jagdish Manchanda, Advocate,
for the petitioner.
Ms. Kirti Singh, DAG, Haryana,
for the State.
*****
RANJIT SINGH, J.
The petitioner claims that he was allotted land in Khewat No.229, Khatoni No.4868, 4869, 4870, 4871 in Khasra Nos.63 (21-
0), 63 Min (26-12), 36 (7-5), 37 (8-19), 66 (1-0) in Village Siwani Rai Singhan, Tehsil Bhiwani, District Hisar. The name of the predecessors of the present petitioner is depicted in the jamabandi for the year 1965-66. As is claimed by the petitioner, the allotment was entered into the revenue record vide Rapat No.65 in the name of predecessors of present petitioner. The petitioner's family got 64 kanals 16 marlas as its share, which is equivalent to 2-8-1/2 standard acres, which he claimed to be in possession since 18.5.1950.
CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.2549 OF 2011 :{ 2 }:
The petitioner had demanded the revenue record of the agriculture land, which was allotted to his predecessors on 19.9.1967. He learnt that the same had been cancelled. This order was statedly not supplied to the petitioner. Thereafter, the petitioner did nothing except for visiting the office of respondent Nos.3 and 4 on 30.8.1996. The petitioner claims that no order was supplied to him despite an application having been made to Assistant Registrar, Rehabilitation Department demanding the copy of the order dated 27.9.1967.
Reference is then made that order was not supplied till 20.5.1997, a jump of thirty years without explaining anything as to what was the petitioner doing in between. The petitioner again keeps mum till 13.3.2006, when he served a legal notice through Advocate for non-supply of order. Another nine years gap is, thus, unexplained.
The petitioner also made a representation that land measuring 64 kanals 16 marlas is allotted to father of the petitioner and his two brothers. The petitioner concedes that he was aware of the cancellation order dated 27.9.1967 but he has not disclosed the date of this knowledge.
The petitioner still claimed to be entitled to allotment of land measuring 64 kanals 16 marlas being legal heirs of deceased Kanshi Ram in lieu of the land left in Pakistan. In this regard, representations were filed on 19.8.2006, 18.5.2007 and 12.2.2009. A legal notice was then served on respondent No.1 on 4.8.2010. Prayer is made to allot alternative land to the present petitioner in lieu of the land left in Pakistan. The petitioner now has filed this writ CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.2549 OF 2011 :{ 3 }:
petition on 3.2.2011 before this Court.
Notice of motion was issued. Reply has been filed on behalf of the State. State has raised number of preliminary objections besides making some preliminary submissions. It is disclosed that land measuring 64 bigha and 16 biswa in the value of 5 standard acres 1 unit was allotted jointly in the names of Devi Dayal son of Sahib Dayal, Ram Dayal and Kanshi Ram sons of Sahib Ditta. This allotment was temporary and was subsequently cancelled by the Section Officer-cum-Managing Officer on 27.9.1967 due to non- taking of possession by the allottees. This cancellation order was issued on 17.10.1967. Kesar Kaur widow of late Shri Devi Dass Bakshi through Davinder Kumar Sharma filed an appeal against the order dated 27.9.1967. The Additional Settlement Officer (Sales)- cum-Assistant Settlement Commissioner, Ambala, dismissed the appeal in default on 29.10.1974. Copy of this order has been placed on record as Annexure R-2. The order reads as under:-
"Present: None Called twice. The appellant has not turned up inspite of Registered notice.
The appeal is dismissed in default.
Sd/-A.S.C. 29.10.74 Camp Gurgaon"
It is disclosed that the petitioner or anybody else neither filed any application for restoration of the appeal, which was dismissed in default nor availed the remedy available to the petitioner of filing any petition or application before Secretary, Rehabilitation-the CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.2549 OF 2011 :{ 4 }:
delegatee of the Central Government under Section 33 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation & Rehabilitation) Act, 1954 (for short, "the Act"). It is, thus, pointed out that the order dated 29.10.1974, dismissing the appeal in default is intact and till date no efforts have been made to get that order set-aside or otherwise to challenge the same in any manner. It is accordingly pleaded that the writ petition is liable to be dismissed on this ground alone.
In addition, it is pleaded that the writ petition is hopelessly time barred. It is filed after 35 years of the order, whereby the appeal was dismissed on 29.10.1974. Plea, therefore, is that the writ petition is filed with inordinate delay and deserves to be dismissed on the ground of laches.
It is then disclosed that Smt.Sunita Bakshi wife of Sh.Gulshan Rai Bakshi moved an application on 2.6.1999 before the assistant Registrar, Rehabilitation Department, Chandigarh, through Minister of Rehabilitation, praying for allotment of land. The representation was considered and the same was filed. Applicant, Smt.Sunita Bakshi was duly informed vide letter dated 15.3.2000 that no help can be rendered on executive side and she may pursue her case before any competent Court of law. Reference is also made to the provisions of Evacuee Property Act, 1950 and the Act, under which provisions the allotment of evacuee lands in lieu of the land left by displaced persons in Pakistan were being made. Reference is then made to the Act being repealed vide Displaced Persons and Other Laws Repealment Act, 2005, without any saving clause. No case for the alleged claim of allotment of land on behalf of the CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.2549 OF 2011 :{ 5 }:
petitioner was pending before the Haryana State Authorities on or before 6.9.2005, the day the Act was repealed. It is, thus, pleaded that there is no provision for making allotment of land against verified claims in the name of displaced persons migrated from Pakistan at the time of partition. It is accordingly stated that the writ petition would be liable to be dismissed on this ground as well.
On the basis of stand taken in the reply, which is further elaborated as per the amended provisions of enactment in the year 2010, I do not find any merit in the claim raised by the petitioner. The facts as noticed above would clearly show that this allotment was cancelled in the year 1967. The cause of action, if any, to challenge the order arose for the petitioner or his predecessors in the year 1967. The cancellation was due to the fact that predecessors of the petitioner did not make any move to take possession of the land. On coming to know about this cancellation, one Smt.Kesar Kaur w/o Devi Dass Bakshi) filed an appeal, which was dismissed for non- prosecution. Thereafter, no action was taken to either get the order set-aside or for restoration of appeal. The petitioner has remained silent for 35 years. The difficulty on the part of the petitioner to explain this delay can be understood whereas he has jumped from 1968 to 1996 without any explanation and then from the year 1996 onwards to year 2006. No explanation is forthcoming for making the next move in the year 2006 whereafter some legal notices were statedly served. Whether those were served or not, would be a disputed question of fact and finally the petitioner has filed a petition after 35 years of the order passed in an application filed by none else CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.2549 OF 2011 :{ 6 }:
then his own wife. Besides, the other grounds on merit, this inordinate delay in itself is so long that writ Court would feel deterred to exercise its jurisdiction. In addition, the fact that the provisions of the Act have been repealed and the entitlement of the petitioner is not covered under the new Act as no claim on behalf of the petitioner was pending on the date the new Act was introduced, the petitioner would not have any claim on merits as well.
Faced with uncontroverted facts as emerging from record, the counsel for the petitioner prayed for withdrawing the petition to file a fresh petition. What purpose would this move was to serve is not understood. The prayer is accordingly declined.
Accordingly, I do not find any merit in the writ petition and would dismiss the same.
September 14, 2012 (RANJIT SINGH ) khurmi JUDGE