HARKAMLJEET SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners, namely, Rachpal Singh son of Kehar Singh was allotted 48 kanals 1 marla land in the year 1972. The allotment was on leasehold basis for a period of 10 years. The land in dispute is allegedly evacuee property. One of the terms of the lease was that after expiry of five years, the lease holder has an option of purchasing the same on payment of Rs.4 per acre for banzar land and Rs.25 per acre for gair mumkin land. The lease money was deductable from the sale price.

(2.) Said Rachpal Singh never applied for purchase of land in dispute during the currency of the lease. An application for purchase was made for the first time on 10.2.1994, but no action was taken thereupon and thus, the petitioners were constrained to approach this Court by way of CWP-3548-2013. The said writ petition was disposed vide order dated 18.2.2013 with directions to the Deputy Commissioner, Hoshiarpur, to decide the representation dated 16.10.2012, made by the petitioners by passing a speaking order. The said representation has been rejected vide order dated 8.8.2013. This order was challenged by way of revision petition, but the same was also dismissed vide order dated 13.7.2016. A further revision was carried before the learned Financial Commissioner (Revenue),Punjab, but the same was also rejected vide impugned order dated 8.4.2018. Thus, the present writ petition has been filed.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that prior to making application dated 10.2.1994, the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners had been approaching the department many times for purchase of the land, but his application for transfer was never accepted on the ground that stay order was operating against the land. Assuming, that the first application was made on 10.2.1994, the case of the petitioners was covered by Policy dated 10.3.1994, whereby surplus rural evacuee land could be disposed of in favour of an unauthorized occupant. Still further, Rule 5 of the Punjab Package Deal Properties (Disposal) Rules, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules') provides that in case an application for transfer is not made within the prescribed time, penalty amounting to 50% of the reserve price can be imposed. Thus, the authorities below were in error in rejecting the claim of the petitioners. It is also argued that a stay order was operating against the land and thus, predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners could not have applied for transfer of the land in accordance with terms of the lease and thus, there was no delay on his part. The predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners in fact applied after five years, but his application was not accepted on account of the operation of a stay order.