SUNDER DASS BHAGWAN DASS Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition came up for hearing before my learned brother Narula, J. , on march 13, 1970, and it was referred to a larger Bench on the ground that the question of law involved seemed to be of substantial importance and if the writ petition succeeded, it might have far-reaching consequences. In pursuance of that order, the petition was placed for hearing before my learned brethern Narula and suri, JJ. and noticing that there was an earlier judgment of Tek Chand and Pandit. JJ. , in Bishan Singh v. Central Government ILR (1961)1 Punj 415= (AIR 1961 Punj 451), which seemed to be in conflict with another Division Bench judgment of S. B. Capoor and Shamsher Bahadur, JJ. , in Ram Chander v. State of Punjab, ILR (1968) 2 Punj and Har 651= (AIR 1969 Punj 4), the learned Judges directed that the papers might be placed before Honourable Chief Justice for constituting a Full bench for the hearing and disposal of this petition. This order was passed on July 21, 1970 and in pursuance of that order the writ petition has come up for hearing before us.

(2.) THE petitioners are 26 in number and in para 1 of the petition they have stated that they are displaced persons from West Pakistan and are now living in the State of Punjab. Some of them are claim-holders in respect of urban agricultural land and some are claim-holders for immovable property other than agricultural land, while others are lessees/sub-lessees of acquired evacuee urban agricultural lands. An objection was taken in the written statement file by respondent 2 that the petitioners had not given the particulars of their verified claims so that no reply could be given whether they had any interest in the compensation pool so as to entitle them to challenge the 'package Deal' which was entered into between the union of India and the State of Punjab on February 27, 1970. the petitioners filed an amended writ petition but again they did not state the particulars of their claims. Ultimately, they filed a replication and along with that replication they filed affidavits of eight petitioners. The affidavits show that they have already received full compensation in accordance with the scales prescribed in Appendix VIII to the displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Rules, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules) which Appendix is referred to in Rule 16 thereof. At the hearing of the petition, the learned counsel for the petitioners has argued the petition on the footing that all the petitioners has argued the petition on the footing that all the petitioners are satisfied claim-holders, that is, they are displaced persons from West Pakistan who got their claims verified and their verified claims have been satisfied in accordance with the scales prescribed in R. 16 read with Appendix VIII ibid. On this admission the question arises whether the petitioners have any locus standi to file this petition.

(3.) THE learned counsel for the petitioners have referred to the preamble of the displaced persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), which reads-