STATE OF PUNJAB Vs. SH. PARAMPRIT SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE brief facts of the case are that the father of respondent made a claim to 50 acres of land which was confiscated by the erstwhile British Government as punishment. The respondent was seeking the return of his property. The father of respondent made his first representation in the year 1948. Unfortunately, he died in the year 1958. In year 1979, his wife found certain papers i.e. communication between her husband and the government and wrote to the Chief Minister, Punjab on 03 -09 -1979. After due verification, the Government came to the conclusion that compensation for the confiscated property would be paid. A sum of Rs. 72,050/ - was paid as compensation in lieu of 50 acres of agriculture land confiscated in 1942. A measly amount of Rs. 17,300/ - was fixed as principal amount and Rs. 54,750/ - was added as interest calculated for the period w.e.f. 01 -04 -1992 to 31 -05 -1993. This was challenged by the respondent by filing writ petition in this Court in the year 1994. The writ petition was allowed by the learned Single Bench.

(2.) AGGRIEVED , the State has filed the present Letters Patent Appeal. The first ground raised in the present Letters Patent Appeal is that the revenue documents supplied by the Pakistani Authorities failed to confirm the fundamental details of the claims like the extent of area, the father's name etc. However, we feel that such a stand is totally misconceived in view of the earlier stand taken by the State in the Writ itself, wherein the fact of 50 acres of land having been occupied was not denied and the Revenue Department of the State of Punjab accordingly decided to pay compensation in lieu of the land but calculated the price of this land at a low rate of Rs. 1500/ - per acre which worked out to Rs. 17,300/ - and accordingly Rs. 72,050/ - were duly paid i.e. Rs. 17,300/ -principal amount plus Rs. 54,750/ - as interest from 01 -04 -1942 to 31 -05 -1993. Learned Single Judge, after going through the record, recorded the following findings:

(3.) WE also find no ground to interfere with the cost imposed by the Single Bench in as much as the action of the Government in denying the rightful due to the respondent was totally unreasonable. The father of the respondent was running from the pillar to post since the year 1948. He made his first representation on 11 -12 -1948, praying for restoration of the property to him which has been confiscated by British Government. Unfortunately, he died in the year 1958 and it was only in the year 1979, when the mother of the respondent, while going through the old papers, came across the letters and she, accordingly, wrote a letter dated 03 -09 -1979 to the Chief Minister, Punjab, for restoration of the confiscated land. Thereafter, a sum of Rs. 17,300/ - was taken as a principal amount for price of 50 acres of land and a sum of Rs. 54,750/ - was calculated as interest from 01 -04 -1942 to 31 -05 -1993. Moreover, inspite of the fact that the State had almost no argument to submit before the learned Single Judge and absolutely no defence to offer except, "the benefit of compensation for the property confiscated by the British Government from those freedom fighters who took part in the liberation of the country from foreign rule has been extended as a token of honour to the freedom fighter. This concession cannot be claimed by them as a matter of statutory right", have chosen to file the present Letters Patent Appeal. It was duly recorded by the learned Single Judge that "each of the Counsel representing the State would nod at the sentiments and the view expressed through the orders that the petitioner deserves better treatment and return of his property but would come back to inform the Court that the Government or the Secretaries are not prepared to pass the order". In these circumstances, the cost imposed are totally justified.