Partly allowed

Bhagwan Bai etc. v. State of Pb.Etc.

Punjab & Haryana HC20 Apr 2011CWP/12078/1990

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition, the High Court of Punjab and Haryana quashed an attempted auction of land allotted to displaced persons under the Displaced Persons (Compensatio & Rehabilitation) Act, 1954. The Court directed the government to reappraise property extents based on prior judicial clarifications before resuming possession of any alleged excess land.

What did the court decide?

Quashed the attempted auction of the impugned property and allowed the Government to reappraise the extent of the allotted property to determine if any excess exists for recovery.

Bhagwan Bai etc. Vs State of… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Punjab & Haryana HC (2011)

¶1

CWP No.12078 of 1990

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

CWP No.12078 of 1990

¶5

DATE OF DECISION: April 20, 2011

¶6

BHAGWAN BAI AND OTHERS ...PETITIONERS

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANOTHER

¶9

...RESPONDENTS

¶10

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.KANNAN.

¶11

Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement? No

¶12

To be referred to the reporters or not? No

¶13

Whether the judgement should be reported in the digest? No

¶14

PRESENT: MS. VANITA SAPRA, ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONERS. MR. K.S. SIVIA, DAG, PUNJAB.

¶15

K.KANNAN, J.(ORAL)

¶16

The writ petition contains a challenge to an attempted auction by the Tehsildar, Abohar through the notice issued by the Tehsildar to the petitioners. The property makes a specific reference to Khasra No.125M/16/2,25, 169M/11,12,19,20, 170M/15 and 136M/5,6. The contention of the petitioners in the writ petition was that their property had been allotted alongwith some other properties in another village at Dandi Khurd, under the order of the Assistant Registrar-cum-Managing Officer, Rehabilitation Department, Punjab, Jalandhar on 10.3.64 under the provisions of the Displaced Persons (Compensatio & Rehabilitation) Act, 1954. This was said to be as a measure of recompense to a person who had been displaced at the time of partition of Pakistan. Proceedings have been taken subsequently for reducing the extent of holding on the ground that property in excess had been allotted, but through an intervention of order of

¶17

CWP No.12078 of 1990

¶18

¶19

this Court in CWP No.2277 of 1964, the authorities were restrained from repossessing any property that had been allotted already. The grievance of the petitioners is that property which is sought to be dispossessed through an auction is comprised in the property which was allotted and that falls within the extent of 36.1½ standard acres.

¶20

The contention in the written statement is that by virtue of the proceedings of Registrar-cum-Managing Director, Department of Rehabilitation, the property that the petitioners was found entitled to was 36.10¼ standard acres and it was directed that the Tehsildar (Sales) shall ensure that no allotment to the petitioners shall exceed the said extent.

¶21

If the justification for the impugned action is that the petitioners were retaining in their possession the property in excess of 36.10¼ standard acres, then it shall first of all be established that properties which are mentioned in Annexure P-6 are in excess of the said extent. It is not clear from the respective pleadings of parties as to how the properties mentioned through the impugned notice are found to be in excess of the extent which Annexure R-1 itself recognizes as the extent of entitlement of the petitioners.

¶22

The attempted auction of the respondents is quashed, but the Government shall be at liberty to reappraise the extent of property comprised in original order of allotment under Annexure P-1 and which was clarified in terms of the decision given by this Court in the abovesaid writ petition on the basis of which the petitioners' right was found not to exceed 36.10¼ standard acres. On such reckoning, if there is any property found to be in excess, it shall be open to the respondents to take appropriate action for resuming the possession and conducting a further action in accordance

¶23

CWP No.12078 of 1990

¶24

¶25

with law.

¶26

The writ petition is disposed of as above. April 20, 2011 (K.KANNAN) Gulati JUDGE

Bhagwan Bai etc. v. State of Pb.Etc.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bhagwan Bai etc. v. State of Pb.Etc.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Fazilka Central Coop. Vs State of Punjab

Gram Panchayat Vill Tong Vs State of Punjab & Ors.

Krishan Kumar Sharma& Others Vs State of Punjabthroug Its Secy

Ajit Pal Singh Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Satpal Singh Vs State of Haryana & Ors.

Punjab Khand Udyog Mazdur Union Vs State of Punjab & Ors.