RAM SINGH Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) It is an unfortunate case where even after lapse of 40 years since the partition of the country, the petitioner has not yet been allotted land in satisfaction of his verified claim in respect of the land left by him in West Pakistan

(2.) The petitioner and his brother Partap Chand jointly owned considerable area of agricultural land in Village Darkot, District Hazara (N.W.F.P). The petitioner submitted his claim in respect of his share of land to the land Claims Officer, which was duly verified vide order, dated June 12, 1952 Annexure P-1. HIs claim in terms of standard acres and units was verified to be of 4 standard acres 2-1/2 units. He had been making repeated applications for allotment of land in lieu of his verified claim, as is evident from Annexures P-2, P-3, and P-4. It was only May 31, 1976, Annexure P. 5 that after imposing Punjab, cut, the petitioner was declared entitled by respondent No.1 to allotment of 3 standard acres 17 units of land and a letter to this effect was addressed to the Lands Claims officer, Punjab/Haryana Government, vide which they were requested to allot land to him to the above extent.

(3.) It should be noted here that Partap Chand, the brother of the petitioner, was allotted 11 standard acres 5-1/2 units of land in village Tibbi Arain, Tehsil Jagadhri, District Ambala. It appears that allotment to him was made in respect of the entire land including the share of the petitioner. Later on, however, it was found that Partap Chand was holding 6 standard acres 6-1/4 units of land in excess of his entitlement. The area to this extent in his favour was cancelled by the Assistant Registrar-cum-Managing Officer, vide order dated June 9, 1972. The appeal and revision filed by Partap Chand were dismissed by the authorities under the Displace Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954 (for short the 'Act') Partap Chand contended in his appeal and revision that as his brother, the petitioner, had not been given his due allotment for his share of land, the petitioner, should be allotted land out of the excess area found with Partap Chand. This plea of his was, however, rejected and an order was passed to the effect that Partap Chand should be allowed to purchase the remaining area by payment of its price and if he failed to do so, the excess area with him may be disposed of by auction.