DALIP KAUR WD/O SWARAN SINGH RESIDENT OF VILLAGE BHOLTH TEHSIL AND DISTRICT KAPURTHALA Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB THROUGH FINANCIAL COMMISSIONER (REGENUE) & SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT PUNJAB, REHABILITATION DEPARTMENT, CHANDIGARH AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, who is a 'war widow' and who had been allotted 10 acres of land, found that a portion of the property allotted to her, had been claimed by another person as a displaced person, who had been previously allotted the said property under the Displaced Persons (Compensation & Rehabilitation) Act, 1954 (for short, 'the Act, 1954'). Out of the 10 acres of land, the property claimed by the displaced person was situated in village Bhadas. After the allotment had been done, at a time when it was found by the authorities that it had been made in excess, a cancellation order came to be issued but the displaced person had filed an application for purchase of the said property at the market rate. The fortunes of the war widow and the displaced person were ever vacillating by successive authorities reversing each others decision till the case came to be decided through the Financial Commissioner, which is impugned in the writ petition.

(2.) The case really involves an inter se dispute between a war widow, who had been allotted the property under Rule 4 of the Punjab Package Deals Property (Disposal) Act & Rules, 1976 (for short, 'the Act, 1976') and a right of a person, who had been allotted the property as a "displaced person" and who claims a sale by negotiation of the cancelled land under Rule 4-B of the Act, 1976. At the time when the allotment had been made under Rule 4 of the Act, 1976 to the war widow, it is an admitted case that an application for sale of the property by the displaced person had been pending. In the manner of rejecting the petitioner's claim as a war widow and upholding the claim of the displaced person, who had obtained an excess allotment, the Financial Commissioner took note of two aspects: (i) Chapter IV regarding the sale of excess land to allottees/vendees was introduced in the Act, 1976 only on 20th March, 1985; (ii) the Settlement Commissioner, whose order had been a subject of challenge before him had actually procured the details of other lands available in Raipur Pirbux where the war widow had already been allotted other lands out of an extent of 10 acres of land. He reasoned that an allottee under Rule 4 of the Act, 1976 cannot dictate what property shall be specifically allotted to her, especially when the displaced person was claiming that he had been in possession of the said property by virtue of the allotment from the year 1950. He had claimed to have made improvements on the land and his rights must have been taken as preferential to the claims of the war widow under Rule 4.

(3.) The counsel appearing for the petitioner would contend that a person, who has secured an excess allotment, had no vested right to secure a sale of the property under the relevant Rules. The learned counsel would rely on the judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in R that dealt with the issue of whether an excess allottee could obtain a vested right to secure a sale in his favour in term of Rule 73(2)(ii) of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Rules, 1955. The Court held that such a vested right did not exist.