Back
2011 Supreme(P&H) 1202
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Before
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice K. Kannan
CWP No.12002 of 1990 (O&M)
State of Punjab
v.
Union of India & Ors.
{Decided on 18/05/2011}
For the Petitioner: Mr. K.S. Sivia, DAG, Punjab.
For the Respondent No.1:Mr. Karminder Singh, Advocate.
For the Respondent No.3 in CWP No.12003 of 1990:Mr. Vinod S. Bhardwaj, Advocate.
For the Respondent No.3 in CWP No.12002 of 1990: None.
For the Respondents No.3 to 9 in CWP No.12004 of 1990: None.
Headnote:Displaced Persons Compensation and Rehabilitation Act, 1954--Allotment of land--Package deal property--The ‘package deal property’ could be such property which does not fall within the property which was required to be allotted under the 1954 Act--The affirmation of allotment to all the private respondents in these writ petitions cannot, however, be sustained only by the fact that the Tehsildar had found that they were entitled to such allotments--The procedural requirements of verification and consideration of their entitlement under the 1954 Act is still to be examined before a confirmation of allotments made--The impugned order is to that extent modified and the matter remitted to the competent authority under the 1954 Act for considering the proposals for allotment to the private respondents in the light of the rules and instructions--However, Impugned order of the Financial Commissioner shall be affirmed so far as it holds that displaced persons who are entitled to allotment under the 1954 Act are persons whose claims will be required considered without reference to the 1976 Act--Punjab Package Deal Properties (Disposal) Act, 1976, S.2(1-A). (Para 8)
Mr. K. Kannan, J. (Oral) - All the three CWP Nos.12002, 12003 and 12004 of 1990 filed at the instance of the State challenge the order passed by the Financial Commissioner (Irrigation and Power), Punjab exercising the powers of Central Government under Section 33 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation & Rehabilitation) Act, 1954 (for brevity, ‘the 1954 Act’). Through this order, the Financial Commissioner was setting aside the cancellation of proposals for allotment made by the Managing Officer through his proceedings dated 16.11.1984 and of other dates. The cancellation had been made by the Chief Settlement Commissioner on 16.11.1986, which was based on a report given by the SDO (Civil), Ludhiana and purported to be in possession of the Potato Seed Farm. The statement in defence by one of the proposed allottees Sahib Dass is that he was a displaced person having migrated from a place now in Pakistan and is entitled for allotment under the 1954 Act. While the proposals for allotment through the first order dated 07.01.1985 was made on the basis that Sahib Dass and other persons, who claimed to be displaced persons, the cancellation was subsequently made when the report showed that the said property had been in the possession of the Potato Seed Farm. The possession had been granted to the Potato Seed Farm by the State Government after a purported transfer of a large extent of land made over to the State Government on ‘package deal’. It appears that even before the enactment of Punjab Package Deal Properties (Disposal) Act, 1976 (for brevity, ‘the 1976 Act’), in relation to evacuee property directions were done through Press notes and the possession was purported to have been handed over on 10.01.1968. The report brought out inter alia that the proposals of allotment had been made by the Kanungo (Sales) even without verifying the parties who were actually in possession of the property. An application for transfer had been made by the Potato Development Officer to the Deputy Secretary, Rehabilitation through his representation dated 17.11.1980. The report had pointed out to several deficiencies in matters of procedure and the order of cancellation was under such a circumstance made by the Chief Settlement Commissioner holding that the allotments could not be sustained.
2. Learned counsel appearing for the State affirms the order of cancellation and impugns the subsequent order modifying the same, pointing out that the property had been already in the possession of the Potato Seed Farm and it could not have been ordered to be transfered in favour of the private respondents.
3. The impugned order is supported by the counsel appearing for the third respondent in CWP No.12003 of 1990 by referring to the fact that the property which is alleged to have been transferred by the State Government to the Potato Seed Farm, could not have been validly transferred as it did not qualify for the definition of ‘package deal property’. The ‘package deal property’ defined in Section 2(1-A) of the Punjab Package Deal Properties (Disposal) Act, 1976 is as under:
“2(1-A) ‘package deal property’ means the surplus evacuee property taken over by the State Government and referred to in the Government of India letter – (1) See Punjab Act No.10 of 1979.
(i) No.3 (35) Pol. II/60- Land & Rent, dated 3rd June, 1961, read with letter No.3 (54)/Pol. II/60-L & R, dated 5th March, 1962.
(ii) No.F. 18(40)J/61/prop/Comp & Prop. dated 23rd March, 1963 and,
(iii) No.F 18 (40)/61-Prop-Comp & Prop, dated 29th March, 1963, reproduced in the Schedule of this Act; but excluding such property as may be required for transfer or allotment, by way of compensation to a displaced person, as defined in the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954, and rural agricultural land required for similar allotment to a displaced person of non-Punjabi extraction in pursuance of the Directions of the Central Government given under Section 32 of the Displaced Pe
