SAWARNA RAM Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner seeks the issue of a writ in the nature of Certiorari/Mandamus/Prohibition quashing the order, Annexure P-6 qua the petitioner dated 9.5.1971 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Hoshiarpur relating to allotment of inferior land in Village Chak Sowana (File No. 39) cancelling the land earlier allotted to the petitioner, on the basis of the government instructions on the subject contained in Government Circular No. 2692-R-III 68/1952 dated 31.3.68.

(2.) THE Governor of Punjab issued an order for disposal of inferior evacuee land purchased by the Central Government, Ministry of Rehabilitation. In this policy, it was provided that after establishing a colony for Ex-serviceman, Colony for Graduates in Agriculture in an area of about 500 acres of land, 50% of the remaining land was to be allotted to Harijans of the Village and the rest to other landless persons, including the members of Scheduled Castes, Backward Classes and Indian Christians of the Village as well as Ex-Servicemen on terms and conditions contained in Memo No. 7841-JN(iv)-61/2699 Chandigarh dated 29.8.1961. The petitioner was a member of the Schedules Caste of Village Bhikhowal Thana Hariana, Tehsil and District Hoshiarpur. On the recommendations of the Advisory Committee, he was allotted 127 Kanals 11 Marlas of inferior land in Village Chak Sowana, Tehsil and Distt. Hoshiarpur by order dated 27.12.1962. The possession of the land was delivered to the petitioner on 28.12.1962. In the first instance, the land was leased to the petitioner for a period of 30 years with an option to purchase the land after expiry of five years. Although the petitioner made an application for purchase of the land, it was not filed within the stipulated period. According to the petitioner, no decision had been taken on the aforesaid application. On 31.7.1968, the State of Punjab issued executive instructions through Circular No. 2692-B-III-68/1952. Following these instructions, the previous allotments, including the allotment in the name of the petitioner has been cancelled, by order dated 9.5.1971. The present writ petition has been filed challenging the aforesaid order on the ground that the same has been passed in breach of rules of natural justice. The writ petition has been filed on 20.12.1983.

(3.) THE State of Punjab has also filed the reply. It has been stated that the impugned order was passed by the competent authority on 9.5.1971. The writ petition having been filed after 13 years is liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay and laches only. It is admitted that the allotment was made to the petitioner and the possession was also delivered to him on 28.12.1962. However, the meeting in which the allotment was made to the petitioner was not attended by the Chairman (Deputy Commissioner) of the Tehsil Advisory Committee nor the allotment made was approved by the Chairman (Deputy Commissioner). In view of the instructions of the Government contained in the letter dated 29.8.1961, the order of allotment was cancelled by the Deputy Commissioner. It is even denied that the land was ever leased to the petitioner by the competent authority or that any lease-deed was issued to him by the competent authority. The respondents also deny that the petitioner had made any application for the purchase of the land as the same had never been received in the office of the Deputy Commissioner. It is further averred that in the Circular letter No. 2692-R-III-68/1952 dated 31.3.1968, the Tehsil Advisory Committee earlier constituted were dissolved and the Deputy Commissioner had been empowered to make allotment of such lands in future. However, the land allotted to the petitioner by the Tehsil Advisory Committee was not cancelled, on the basis of these instructions, rather it was cancelled on the ground that the allotment had not been approved by the Chairman (Deputy Commissioner) of the Tehsil Advisory Committee. Fresh allotment of the entire inferior evacuee land in the village was made on 9.5.1971 in accordance with the Government instructions of 1961. Even the petitioner was allotted 17 Kanals 17 Marlas of land by the same order dated 9.5.1971. The petitioner opted for the confirmation of the proprietary rights on him and the same were conferred on him. It is further stated that respondents No. 3 to 6 were allotted the land in question on 9.5.1971. Possession of the land was delivered to respondents No. 4 to 6 during Rabi/Kharif, 1972, and to respondent No. 3 from Rabi 1974. The petitioner was, therefore, divested of the possession of the land in pursuance of the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner dated 9.5.1971. It is emphatically stated that the order dated 9.5.1971 was within the knowledge of the petitioner and in fact he had accepted the order because he had been allotted 17 Kanals and 17 Marlas of land alongwith others in the same order.