Ex-servicemen settlers who were not among the original allottees of additional land and had not been given possession of the same had no legal right to demand the allotment or retention of 2 acres of additional land.

JUDGMENT

V.K. Jhanji, J. - In this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioners are seeking a writ in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondents to allot to them two acres of land as they are in possession since 1978.

2. Waste land measuring 1182 acres 1 kanal and 15 marlas in village Randhirpur and village Mahablipur in Kapurthala district in Punjab was acquired under the provisions of Pepsu Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1953, for public purpose of establishing a colony of Ex-servicemen. According to the Scheme, 100 ex-servicemen were to be given 10 acres of agricultural land. Initially, 62 persons formed a co-operative society called as Mahablipur-Randhirpur Ex- servicemen Co-operative Land Colonisation and Service Society Limited. It was registered on 21.2.1961. In June, 1961, 62 ex-servicemen settlers were given 10 acres land each. The Deputy Commissioner, Kapurthala, vide letter No. 836/IF dated 17.3.1966 informed the Society through the Secretary that a decision has been taken to allot additional 5 acres of land. It appears that some correspondence on the subject took place between the Deputy Commissioner, Kapurthala and the Revenue Department. Ultimately, vide Government Memorandum No. 4037-4/79/3161 dated 4.3.1971, the Secretary Revenue Department communicated approval of the Government about allotment of Additional 5 acres of land to the ex-servicemen. In pursuance of the decision taken by the Deputy Commissioner, 38 persons were allotted additional plots of 5 acres each. Subsequently, by order dated 5.7.1975, decision to allot additional 5 acres was withdrawn and ex-servicemen settlers were directed to surrender land to the Government. Ex-servicemen settlers challenged order dated 5.7.1975 of the Deputy Commissioner by way of Civil Writ Petition No. 2833 of 1975. The writ petition was allowed to be withdrawn on the assurance given by the State Government that petitioners would be dispossessed from the land in accordance with law. Thereafter, eviction proceedings were initiated under Section 4 of the Punjab Public Premises and Land (Eviction and Rent Recovery) Act, 1973. Collector vide order dated 1.10.1992 directed ejectment of ex-servicemen from the additional area. Appeal filed against the order of the Collector was dismissed. Civil Writ Petition No. 1893 of 1993 against the order of Collector was dismissed by the High Court. The matter was taken to Honble Supreme Court by way of Civil Appeal No. 1208 of 1984. The Honble Supreme Court though found that no specific order was communicated to the allottees allotting them 5 acres of additional land, but in the circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice, permitted the appellants therein to retain 2 acres each out of additional 5 acres and directed to surrender the remaining 3 acres each to the Government so that the land available may be utilised for settling the remaining 17 families of ex-servicemen. The relevant paragraph of the judgment of the Honble Supreme Court reads as under :-

"It is no doubt correct that no specific order was communicated to the appellants allotting them the additional 5 acres of land and even the original scheme which provided for allotment of 10 acres was not amended; nevertheless a decision having been taken at the leave of the Deputy Commissioner/State Govt. and possession delivered to the appellants it is difficult to hold that no right had accrued to the appellants who are in possession of the additional 5 acres of land for over two decades. The learned counsel for the State of Punjab has, however, argued that according to the scheme 100 families of the Ex-servicemen were to be settled on the acquired land. 62 families were initially settled on the land and subsequently 21 more were settled. According to him, there are still 17 Ex-servicemen who are to be settled but no land is available to accommodate them.

We have given our thoughtful consideration to the arguments of the learned counsel