120 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ****

Date of Decision: 05.02.2026 Vir Kaur ...Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and Others ...Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAGMOHAN BANSAL Present:- Mr. Rai Singh Chauhan, Advocate, Mr. Rohit Sapehiya, Advocate and Ms. Deepika Chauhan, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Aman Dhir, DAG, Punjab.

****

JAGMOHAN BANSAL, J. (ORAL)

1. The petitioner through instant petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India is seeking setting aside of order dated 27.06.2024 whereby Financial Commissioner (Revenue) has directed the petitioner to approach Director, Defence Services Welfare, Punjab for cash grant in lieu of land as per notification dated 19.10.2016. 2. The petitioner is widow of Havaldar Mukhtiar Singh who sacrificed his life during Indo-China War of 1962. The State Government as per Punjab Package Deal Properties (Disposal) Rules, 1976 (for short ‘1976 Rules’) allotted land to dependents of soldiers who sacrificed their life during Indo-China War. The petitioner is a 92 years old lady. She preferred CWP No.2990 of 2015 before this Court seeking direction to respondents to allot her 10 ordinary acres of land under Rule 4 of 1976 Rules. The said petition was disposed of vide order dated 20.11.2023 with a direction to Deputy Commissioner, Kapurthala to examine the record and pass an order with respect to claim of the petitioner. Relevant extracts of order dated 20.11.2023 read as:

“2. This Court had issued notice in the case and vide order dated 21.01.2019 directed the State of Rajasthan to be impleaded as party. On impleadment, respondent No.3 was directed to file an affidavit and the same has been placed on record. On perusal of the said affidavit, it is found that no land was allotted to the petitioner in the State of Rajasthan.

3. Thus, the contentions of respondent-State of Punjab in the affidavit filed by Deputy Commissioner that the record from Rajasthan is not available is of no consequence as the affidavit of Bharti Fulfakr, SDM, SriVijay Nagar has been placed on record wherein it is stated that no land was allotted to the petitioner.

4. Learned State counsel has drawn attention of this Court to the affidavit filed by the Sh. D.P.S. Kharbanda, Deputy Commissioner Kapurthala dated 28.09.2019 to the effect that the petitioner being a war widow of 1963 in Indo- China War, is not entitled to claim allotment of land in State of Punjab under the Provisions of Punjab Package deal Properties (Disposal) act, 1976. However, after reading the affidavits filed by the State earlier wherein it has been mentioned that the petitioner had been allotted land in Rajasthan and because of the non-availablity of the record from Rajasthan, the case could not be proceeded further. The reply filed by the Deputy Commissioner-Sh. D.P.S. Kharbanda, would show that abovesaid fact was not taken into consideration while considering the claim of the petitioner for the allotment of land as a War Widow.

5. On hearing learned counsel for the parties this petition is disposed of with a direction to Deputy Commissioner, Kapurthala to take into consideration the complete record of this case including the affidavit filed today by SDM Srivijaynagar, District Anupgarh and thereafter pass a fresh order on hearing the petitioner and her case would be decided expeditiously, preferably within three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.”

3. Pursuant to aforesaid order, the Deputy Commissioner, Kapurthala passed order dated 01.04.2024 noticing that as per memo dated 01.03.2016 joint investigation report was prepared of 135 cases. Name of petitioner is listed on Page No.29 of list of 135 cases. The petitioner was never allotted land by State of Rajasthan. She is eligible for the benefit of scheme as per memo dated 01.03.2016. Relevant extracts of order dated 01.04.2024 read as:

“10. Keeping in mind all the above facts, I have concluded that the petitioner, Veer Kaur, is the w