State of Haryana & Others Vs Praduman
Singh (D) By LRS.
J U D G M E N T
GYAN SUDHA MISRA, J.
1.
This
Appeal has been preferred by the State of Haryana against the judgment and
order dated 13th July, 2000 passed by a Division Bench of the High Court in
Civil Writ Petition No. 14050 of 1998, whereby the writ petition filed by the
predecessor-in-interest of the respondents herein was 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 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 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 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 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 delivery
of possession with cost of Rupees five thousand. However, the parties herein
are left to bear their own costs.
...........................J.[MARKANDEY
KATJU]
...........................J.
[GYAN SUDHA MISRA]
NEW
DELHI;
FEBRUARY
15, 2011
Back
