MR. JUSTICE S.RAVINDRA BHAT

1. In these two writ proceedings, the petitioner questions to the decision of the Central Government, which in effect rejected his claim for allotment of 6 standard acres and 7-15/16 units, under the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1964 and Rules framed under it (hereafter called the Act and the Rules, respectively).

2. Briefly the facts pertaining to WP(C) No.2613/1981 are that the petitioner claimed ownership of lands in erstwhile Punjab (present day in Pakistan) and had to flee during the partition when he came and settled in India. The scheme of the Act and Rules prescribed that such individuals, i.e. “displaced persons” were to lodge claims that were to be verified having regard to the records available. The petitioner was allotted agricultural land in Tehsil Ballabhgarh (present day in Haryana), in lieu of the land owned by him in the North West Frontier Province (NWFP). It is contended that the petitioner’s claim was not fully satisfied and continued to be pending till 28.12.1977 when a letter was issued acknowledging that as against his entitlement to 32 standard acres and 11/16 units (after the permissible deductions under the Act and Rules), he was holding 25 standard acres and 8-3/4 units. He was therefore held entitled to allotment of net balance, i.e. 6 standard acres and 7-15/16 units. The petitioner refers to his two representations having been made for allotment of such 6 standard acres odd of land and has annexed copies of such letters dated 28.12.1977 and 06.04.1979.

3. Such being the position, on 11.09.1979 the Rehabilitation Department of Haryana by a communication dated 11.05.1979 took the possession saying that under the existing policy no allotment could be made to a non-Punjabi claimant. This stand is reflected in the following in the following letter:

“No. 372/R/1 dated 11/5/1979

To

Shri Lachman Dass

Son of late Shri Thana Ram,

House No. 2, H.B./80/_Township New/_

Faridabad, District Gurgaon.

The application which you have given for allotment of agricultural land having an area of 6 standard acre and 7 15/16 units, has been filled on 30-4-1979 on the ground that under the Government Policy, no allotment can be made to a non-Punjabi claimant.

Sd/-

Assistant Registrar (H),

Chandigarh.”

4. The petitioner protested this stand contending the policy was opposed to the scheme of the Act, which did not discriminate between various classes of displaced persons on the basis of their different land holdings in Pakistan. It was also contended that the petitioner held lands in both pre-Partition Punjab Province, as well as NWFP. On the basis of these allegations, the petitioner approached this Court seeking a direction that his claim for 6 standard acres and 7-15/16 units should be satisfied in accordance with the letter dated 28.12.1977.

5. The Petitioner relies on the order, dated 24.10.1966, of the Authorized Chief Settlement Commissioner confirming that he, and Shrimati Mukandi Bai were entitled to ½ share each in the agricultural land claim, which was subsequently accepted by the Settlement Commissioner by his orders dated 31.5.1970. The said Mukandi Bai was the wife of Chaman Lal, whose grandfather, and that of the petitioner’s father were common. The genealogical tree, relevant for the present purpose, as set out in the petitions, and various orders, is as follows:

Sahib Ram. Dasu Ram

Thana Ram Hem Raj

Lachman Dass Mukandi Bai (widow of Chaman Lal)

It is stated that the above facts did not mean that the petitioner and Smt Mukandi Bai held joint claims. The order of the Authorized Chief Settlement Commissioner, had bifurcated the claims of the petitioner and Shrimati Mukandi Bai in equal shares, to be assessed separately and not on pro-rata basis.

6. The Petitioner contends that land to the extent of 46 acres 10-1/6 units was allotted to both claimants, (i.e. himself and Mukandi Bai) in Punjab after Panchayat Tasdik, as by that time Revenue