MEHNGA SINGH Vs. COMMISSIONER, JULLUNDUR, DIVISION, JULLUNDUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a Letters Patent Appeal arising out of Civil Writ Petition No. 4631 of 1980 filed by Mehnga Singh, Dharam Singh, Mohinder Singh, Man Singh and Lachhman Singh. The writ petition was filed seeking a relief for quashing the order Annexure P-3 dated lst October, 1980, passed by the Commissioner, Jalandhar Division, Jalandhar, in a reference made to him under the provisions of Section 15 of the Punjab Package Deal Properties (Disposal) Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as the "Disposal Act, 1976"). The petition was dismissed by the learned single judge by his order dated 30th November, 1983.

(2.) The case of the writ petitioner is that they are displaced persons from West Pakistan and after migration, they have settled in village Khilchian. During consolidation operation the land in dispute became a part of the post consolidation khasra No. 118 measuring 2 kanals 12 marlas. In April 1961 an agreement was entered into between the Central Government and the erst-while undivided State of Punjab by virtue of which all undisposed of rural evacuee property was transferred in favour of the State of Punjab by the Central Government. This agreement was popularly known as the 'Package Deal' and the entire evacuee property subject matter of the Package Deal came to be know as the Package Deal Property. It is not disputed that in order to deal with this Package Deal Property the erstwhile State Government of Punjab framed rules in the year 1962 for the sale of surplus rural properties. These rules were popularly known as Package Deal Rules of 1962.

(3.) The case of the writ petitioner is that in pursuance of these rules they applied to the Tehsildar Sales, Amritsar, for transfer of the small pieces of land in their favour. It is their further case that the Tehsildar Sales sold the land in their favour, executed the sale deed and as the possession of the land in dispute was already with the writ petitioners their possession was regularised. After the sale, the petitioners constructed houses on the land in dispute. It is not in dispute that the constructions is still existed on the land in dispute and the petitioners are in possession of the said constructions.