In this writ petition, the petitioner challenged an order cancelling the land allotted by the Rehabilitation Department. The court held that the 1996 Haryana amendment saved pre-1985 allotments, upholding the validity of the grant.
The quash of the Cancelled Order and the Restoration of the Petitioners Possession of their Land.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
C.W.P.No. 2220 of 1990
In the High Court for the states of Punjab and Haryan at Chandigarh
C.W.P.No. 2220 of 1990
Date of Decision:19.11.2010
Dhanpat and others
Petitioners
Versus
Union of India and others Respondents.
Coram:Hon’ble Ms.Justice Ritu Bahri
Present:None.
Ritu Bahri, J.
The petitioners, in this writ petition, have challenged the order dated 04.09.1987 (Annexure P-5) vide which the land allotted to the predecessor-ininterest of the petitioner i.e. Narain Dass by the Rehabilitation Department in lieu of the land left by him in Pakistan, has been cancelled
Narain Dass had been allotted land to the extent of 5-10 3/4 standard acres in village Sumra Khera, Tehsil Bawani Khera, District Bhiwani in lieu of
C.W.P.No. 2220 of 1990
2
the land left by him in Pakistan. The detail of the land as noticed in para 2 of the writ petition is as under:-
“ That land to the extent of 5-10 3/4 standard acres in village Sumra Khera, Tehsil Bawani Khera, District Bhiwani was allotted to Shri Narain Dass, allottee, deceased s/o Sh. Tirath Dass in lieu of the land left by him in village 19/9-R, Tehsil Khanewal, District Multan (Pakistan)”
The aforesaid land allotted to Narain Dass was part of an evacuee area, which, upon the migration of Muslim owners, vested in the custodian in accordance with the provisions of the East Punjab Evacuees (Administration of Property) Act, Act No.14 of 1947 and continued to be so.
The Chief Settlement Commissioner i.e. respondent No.3 prompted unduly by the judgment of the Supreme Court in case of Union of India Vs. Bishan Singh (Civil Appeal No.1726 of 1974) had issued notices to the legal representatives of Narain Dass and other land owners contemplating cancellation of the allotment on the ground that the land in question being shamlat area.
3
C.W.P.No. 2220 of 1990
Pursuant to the notices issued, they appeared before the Chief Settlement Commissioner and contested the legalities of the notices. It was pointed out that the land in question is a shamlat deh and is the ownership of Narain Dass (deceased). In lieu of the land left by him in Pakistan. However, the Chief Settlement Commissionerrespondent vide order dated 4.9.1987 (Annexure P-5) impugned in the present writ petition, cancelled the allotment made in favour of Narain Dass (deceased) in view of the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in case Gram Panchayat of Village Jamalpur Vs. Malwinder Singh and other , AIR 1985, S.C. 1394.
To overcome the effect of the judgment of the Supreme Court in case Gram Panchayat of Village Jamalpur (supra), amendment was carried out by the State of Haryana by Act No.13, 1996 by introducing sub clause (ii-a) in clause (g) of Section 2 of the Act. The Legislature excluded from the definition of shamlat deh that shamlat land, which had been allotted to any person by the Rehabilitation Department of the State Govt. after
the commencement of the Act, but on or before the 9th day of July, 1985 i.e. the date on which the Supreme Court, resolved the controversy in Gram Panchayat, Jamalpur’s case (supra). Effect of this amendment was
C.W.P.No. 2220 of 1990 4
that all the allotments made prior to the year 09.7.1985 were saved, and that the allotments made by the Rehabilitation Department before the appointed date, were not liable to be cancelled.
In view of the above amendment, the Division Bench of this Court in the judgment of Veer Kaur Vs. The State of Haryana and others , (CWP No.7609 of 1988 decided on 23.5.2000), quashed the impugned order cancelling the allotment made to the allottees by the Rehabilitation Department and a direction was given to restore the possession of the land in dispute, to the petitioners forthwith.
Recently, the Division Bench of this Court in case of Gram Panchayat of village Kum-Kalan Vs. The State of Punjab and others (CWP No. 4816 of 1996 decided on 7.4.2010) has upheld the notification and validity of Haryana Act 13 of 1996, whereby the amendment was made by the State of Haryana to overcome the validity by Hon’ble Supreme Court in case Gram Panchayat of Village Jamalpur Vs. Malwinder Singh and other , AIR 1985, S.C. 1394. Once, the validity of the Act 13, 1996 was upheld by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Gram Panchayat of village KumKalan (supra), nothing survives in the present petition.
C.W.P.No. 2220 of 1990
5
Accordingly the writ petition succeeds.
Consequently, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 4.9.1987 (Annexure P-5) is quashed, and it is held that the allotments made by the Rehabilitation Department before the appointed date i.e. 09.7.1985 is perfectly valid.
19.11.2010 ( RITU BAHRI) Anoop JUDGE
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the 1996 amendment to the East Punjab Evacuees Act saves allotments made before the Supreme Court judgment in Gram Panchayat Jamalpur
Whether the impugned order cancelling the land allotment to the petitioner is valid
Whether the Rehabilitation Department allotments made before 09.07.1985 are liable to cancellation
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Union of India vs. Bishan SinghReferred¶22
Union of India Vs. Bishan Singh (Civil Appeal No.1726 of 1974)
Gram Panchayat of Village Jamalpur vs. Malwinder Singh and othersDistinguished¶25
Gram Panchayat of Village Jamalpur Vs. Malwinder Singh and other, AIR 1985, S.C. 1394 · Who else cites this
Veer Kaur vs. The State of Haryana and othersRelied on¶30
Veer Kaur Vs. The State of Haryana and others, (CWP No.7609 of 1988)
Gram Panchayat of village Kum-Kalan vs. The State of Punjab and othersRelied on¶31
Gram Panchayat of village Kum-Kalan Vs. The State of Punjab and others (CWP No. 4816 of 1996)
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Dhanpat and others
Union of India
Ritu Bahri
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
