Punjab-Haryana High Court
Kehar Singh vs State Of Punjab And Others on 13 March, 2013
Author: Rameshwar Singh Malik
Bench: Rameshwar Singh Malik
CWP No.5296 of 2013 1
HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
CWP No.5296 of 2013
Date of decision:13.03.2013
Kehar Singh
...Petitioner(s)
Versus
State of Punjab and others
...Respondent(s)
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMESHWAR SINGH MALIK
1. To be referred to the Reporters or not ?
2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ?
Present: Mr.Maninder Arora, Advocate,
for the petitioner.
RAMESHWAR SINGH MALIK, J. (Oral)
The present writ petition is directed against the order dated 24.7.2012 (Annexure P-5) passed by the Financial Commissioner, Punjab, thereby dismissing the appeal of the petitioner against the order dated 22.10.2009 (Annexure P-3), rejecting the application of the petitioner for making up the deficiency in the allotted area.
Brief facts of the case are that petitioner claims himself to be a displaced person from Pakistan. He further claims that treating his father to be a displaced person from Pakistan, he was found entitled for land to the extent of 8 ½ acres, which was allotted to his father, as per jamabandi (Annexure P-1). He also relies upon the certificate dated 27.1.1958 (Annexure P-2). It is further pleaded case on behalf of the petitioner that although his father was allotted 8 ½ acres of land but actually the possession was handed over to him only for 5 acres and he CWP No.5296 of 2013 2 was entitled for 3 ½ acres more. The petitioner had been continuously approaching respondent authorities for allotment of 3 ½ acres of land, but his request was not considered. Finally, he approached respondent No.3 for allotment of 3 ½ acres of land making up the deficiency in his allotted area. However, his application was dismissed by respondent No.2 vide impugned order dated 22.10.2009, Annexure P-3. Dissatisfied, petitioner approached respondent No.2 by way of an appeal (Annexure P-4) under Section 4 B of the Punjab Package Deal Properties (Disposal) Act, 1976 (`the Act' for short). However, appeal of the petitioner was also dismissed vide impugned order dated 24.7.2012 (Annexure P-5) passed by respondent No.2. Hence, this writ petition.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent authorities have proceeded on an erroneous approach, while passing their respective impugned orders. Once father of the petitioner was entitled for 8 ½ acres of land, which was allotted to him, but the possession of entire land was not handed over, he was entitled for allotment of remaining land to the extent of 3 ½ acres. Learned counsel for the petitioner also relies upon Section 4-B of the Act, to contend that the impugned orders passed by the respondent authorities were contrary to the provisions of Section 4-B of the Act.
Since the case of the petitioner is based on Section 4-B, inserted vide Punjab Act No.5 of 2009, it would be appropriate to reproduce the same, which reads as under:-
4-B (1) A displaced person in whose favour, an order regarding entitled to property in lieu of the property, left in CWP No.5296 of 2013 3 Pakistan, was passed by any authority, appointed under the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954 since repealed (hereinafter referred to as the repealed Act of 1954) up to the 5th day of September, 2005 but the property was not allotted or the possession of the allotted property was not given to him, or in whose case, proceedings were pending before any authority for allotment or possession up to the said day, may apply, within a period of ninety days from the date of commencement of the Punjab Package Deal Properties (Disposal) Amendment Act, 2009, to the following authorities, namely:-
(a) the Financial Commissioner, Revenue if the order was passed by the State Government under the repealed Act of 1954; and
(b) the Claims Commissioner, if the order was passed by an authority, other than the State Government.
2. The Person, who could not exercise right of appeal or review on account of the repeal of the repealed Act, 1954, shall also be eligible to submit their applications to the claims Commissioner for settlement.
(3) The persons, whose claims for allotment were rejected by any officer, appointment under the repealed Act, 1954, and who had not filed any appeal, review or revision within the stipulated period up to the 5th day of September, 2005, CWP No.5296 of 2013 4 shall not be eligible for allotment of property."
A bare combined reading of the above-said provisions of law and facts of the present case, would show that petitioner has failed to make out any case for making up the alleged deficiency in his allotted area.
Firstly, there is no document on the record to show the entitlement of the petitioner or even that of his father. There is no document which may show that the petitioner or his father was having a verified claim for allotment of 8 ½ acres of land. It is his own case set up by the petitioner that his father was allotted 8 ½ acres of land but possession was handed over only of 5 acres and as per own showing of the petitioner, this allotment was made in the year 1953, as stated in para 4 of his appeal, Annexure P-4.
It is the further claim of the petitioner that out of 8 ½ acres, possession of 5 acres land was given and 3 ½ acres were allotted to somebody else in the year 1955. However, there is no explanation, whatsoever, as to what the father of the petitioner and after his death, the petitioner himself had been doing in this regard approaching any authority putting his claim. It prima facie seems that the petitioner became greedy only after the Amendment Act of 2009 was passed. In this view of the matter, since the petitioner has failed to give even a semblance of explanation for more than 50 years, the respondent authorities committed no error of law while declining his claim.
Case of the petitioner is not covered under Section 4-B of the Act, reproduced above, because property was allotted to his father and CWP No.5296 of 2013 5 possession was also given. Petitioner or his predecessor-in-interest did not file any appeal, review or revision against the allotment order passed in 1953 or 1955. Further, he did not challenge the allotment of 3 ½ acres, which was made in favour of some other person. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner failed to substantiate his arguments to show entitlement of the petitioner for 8 ½ acres of land. There is nothing on record to show that the petitioner was entitled for the relief being claimed at this belated stage after more than long 50 years. Having said that, this Court feels no hesitation to conclude that the impugned orders are not suffering from any patent illegality or perversity.
Petitioner has failed to establish his claim either before any of the authorities below or even before this Court. While dismissing the appeal of the petitioner, Financial Commissioner (Revenue), Punjab, considered the appeal of the petitioner on merits. The relevant operative part of the order dated 24.7.2012 passed by the Financial Commissioner reads as under:-
"I have considered the rival contentions carefully and have gone through the record. Even if the technical objections put forth by State counsel are kept aside for the time being, the appeal does not inspire any confidence. The alleged Sanad relied upon by the appellant is dated 27.1.50 but purports to have been issued in pursuance of a notification dated 12.7.55. Even otherwise the appeal does not contain any documents to support the appellant's contention that he had been put in possession of only part of the land." CWP No.5296 of 2013 6
During the course of hearing, when a pointed query was put by the Court to the learned counsel for the petitioner to show any other document in his favour so as to prima facie establish his entitlement to the extent of 8 ½ acres of land, he had nothing to say. Inordinate delay on the part of the petitioner apart, he had no case on merit as well.
Further, if the petitioner had a genuine claim in this regard, he would never have kept silent for more than 50 years. Thus, it is unhesitatingly held that the petitioner rightly felt satisfied with the allotment of land and possession thereof because he was not entitled for any land over and above whatsoever was allotted to him and given possession thereof. Even a civil suit would have become hopelessly time barred. Further, petitioner has not even made any attempt to explain this extraordinary long delay of more than 50 years.
No other argument was raised.
Considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case noted above, coupled with the reasons aforementioned, this Court is of the considered view that the present writ petition is misconceived, bereft of any merit, and without any substance. Thus, it must fail. No case for interference has been made out.
Resultantly, the present writ petition stands dismissed.
13.03.2013 (RAMESHWAR SINGH MALIK) mks JUDGE