State Of Haryana & Ors vs Praduman Singh(Dead)By Lrs

disposed of by directing the respondent-State-appellant

herein, to allot land to the extent of 20 standard acres

under the rehabilitation scheme for displaced persons who

claim to have been displaced after the partition of this

country in the year 1947.

2. The predecessor-in-interest of the respondents herein

had filed a writ petition in the High Court of Punjab &

Haryana at Chandigarh praying to issue a writ of certiorari

for quashing the impugned letter dated 21.6.1996 (Annexure

P/4 to the writ petition) issued by the respondent

No.2/appellant herein, i.e.,Joint Secretary to Government of

Haryana, Rehabilitation Department, Chandigarh which

contained a decision/instruction of the State Government to

-2-

the effect that the allotment of land for rehabilitation

against such claim of land, should be stopped forthwith.

The writ petitioner had further sought a writ of mandamus

for a direction to the respondent No.3/appellant herein,

i.e., Tehsildar (Sales)-cum-Managing Officer, Karnal to make

allotment of land in lieu of the land left by the

respondent-writ petitioner in Pakistan in exercise of his

powers under Section 20 (1) ) of the Displaced Persons

(Compensation & Rehabilitation) Act, 1954 (for short 'the

Act') and the rules made thereunder and to confer propriety

rights upon the petitioner/respondents herein in respect of

the land.

3. The learned Judges of the Division Bench, after hearing

the parties concerned, were pleased to practically allow

the writ petition with costs of rupees five thousand,

although the operative portion indicates that it was only

disposed of, as the High Court directed the State

authorities to allot land to the writ petitioner to the

extent of 20 standard acres within three months and a

further direction was also issued to deliver possession of

the land to the writ petitioner. Curiously, the learned

Judges of the Division Bench did not consider appropriate

even to quash the letter dated 21.6.1996 issued by the

appellant No.2 herein and yet were pleased to direct not

only the allotment of land as per his claim but also a

direction for delivery of the possession within three months

to the writ petitioner/respondents herein. The respondents

-3-

in the writ petition/the appellant-State of Haryana herein,

therefore, has preferred this appeal which was heard by us

at length.

4. Mr. Anoop G. Choudhari, learned counsel for the

appellants-State of Haryana in substance contended that the

High Court could not have issued a direction to the State to

straightaway allot the land and at the most it could have

directed the State authorities to consider the claim of the

respondents herein for allotment of the land under the

rehabilitation scheme.

5. While, we find sufficient force in the argument

advanced, we are further of the view that the Division Bench

of the High Court could not have ordered for allotment and

delivery of possession of the land in lieu of the land which

the respondents claimed by way of rehabilitation for 20

standard acres without even directing an enquiry as to

whether the predecessor-in-interest of the respondents

herein, in fact, had left 20 acres of land in Pakistan or

not when they migrated to India. However, this plea was a

pure question of fact which could not have been entertained

straightway by the High Court, nevertheless, when the

petitioner himself had filed a writ petition in the High

Court for quashing of the letter of instructions dated

21.6.1996 issued by the appellant No.2 herein by which the

allotment of land for rehabilitation had been ordered to be

stopped forthwith, the order for allotment and delivery of

possession could not have been passed legally by the High

-4-

Court without even quashing and setting aside the letter

dated 21.6.1996.

6. Learned counsel for the respondents, however, has

sought to protect the interest of the respondents and hence

submitted that the letter issued by the appellant No.2

herein stopping the allotment of rehabilitation land was

contrary to the statute, which is Displaced Persons

(Compensation & Rehabilitation) Act, 1954 and, therefore,

the letter issued by the appellant No.2 herein being

contrary to the provisions of the statute could not have

been given effect to in order to negative the claim of the

respondents herein.

7. Learned counsel for the respondents-claimants although

may be correct in submitting to the extent that the letter

issued either by the State Government or by the Central

Government cannot be given effect to in case it is contrary

to the provisions of a statute, yet, consequential relief

could not have been granted by the High Court to the writ

petitioner/respondents herein without even quashing the

impugned letter by recording a finding and giving out

reasons as to why the letter should not have been given

effect to. However, when we perused the impugned judgment

of the High Court, we did not find any reason even remotely

in the impugned order for quashing and setting aside the

letter dated 21.6.1996 issued by the appellant NO.2 herein,

and yet the consequential relief of allotment of land and

the delivery of possession has been ordered straightway

-5-

which, in our opinion, smacks of arbitrariness.

8. It is, therefore, difficult for us to uphold the

impugned judgment and order of the Division Bench of the

High Court and hence we quash and set aside the same. If,

however, the writ petitioner, respondents herein, has/have

any other alternative remedy or forum to claim allotment of

the land, they obviously will have to first of all get the

letter of the State Government quashed and set aside which

has ordered stopping the allotment of rehabilitation land

forthwith. Unless the respondents succeed in doing so, no

allotment of the land could have been made specially without

any enquiry as to whether the predecessor-in-interest had

left any land at all in Pakistan when he migrated to India.

Besides this, learned counsel for the appellants-State

further informed that the writ petitioner, predecessor-in-

interest of the respondents herein had already been allotted

land under the rehabilitation scheme way back in the year

1952 and, therefore, claim for allotment for the second time

should not have been allowed by the High Court contrary to

the government instructions. We find force in this

submission also, and, therefore, this aspect was required to

be examined and enquired before any order was passed in

favour of the respondents-claimants.

9. For the reasons given hereinabove, we allow this appeal

and set aside the impugned judgment of the High Court

directing the State of Haryana to make allotment of the land

in favour of the writ petitioner/respondents herein as also

-6-

delivery of possession with cost of Rupees five thousand.

However, the parties herein are left to bear their own

costs.

...........................J. [MARKANDEY KATJU]

NEW DELHI; ...........................J. FEBRUARY 15, 2011 [GYAN SUDHA MISRA]