CHAND KRISHAN MEHTA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this petition filed under Arts. 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the short point involved for determination by this Court is, as to whether the rights of unsatisfied claimants whose claims stood duly verified and process to compensate them under the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954, had already started by allotment of sub-urban agricultural land, stand washed away automatically with the transfer of the evacuee land under the "Package Deal" or the authorities under the Act are still competent in law to finalise the allotments to the unsatisfied claimants for compensating them by accepting their applications for allotment of sub-urban agricultural land keeping in view the choice of lands made by them. The answer is in favour of the unsatisfied claimants as the matter stands already settled in principle by the Supreme Court and directions to that effect have also been issued to the authorities in a number of cases.

(2.) Briefly stating, one Shri Siri Ram Mehta who was a displaced person from West Pakistan owned certain rural agricultural land in districts Lyalpur and Montgomery before partition of the country in 1947. In lieu of the land abandoned in West Pakistan, Shri Mehta was allotted agricultural land to the extent of 55 Standard Acres in Patti Insar and Patti Rajputan, Tehsil Panipat, District Karnal, in addition to an area of 12 Standard Acres and 131/2 Units allotted as a garden in lieu of the garden abandoned by him, in West Pakistan. Later on, when it transpired that the land allotted to Shri Mehta was less than the area to which he was actually entitled, Shri Mehta made an application for making good the deficiency by allotting the remaining area of land as indicated by him in his application. Repeated requests of Shri Mehta bore no fruit and in the meantime he expired in 1975. Thereafter, his son Chand Krishan Mehta, petitioner No. 1, and daughter Smt. Kusham Lata Batla, petitioner No. 2, approached the Rehabilitation Authorities for making good the deficiency in the allotments made to their father. The request made by the present petitioners was inquired into and after verifying the claim made by them, the Assistant Registrar-cum-Managing Officer, Rehabilitation Department, Haryana, issued the direction on 8th August, 1984, to the following effect :-

(3.) In pursuance of the aforesaid direction, the petitioners approached the Tehsildar (Sales), Karnal, for its implementation and signifying their choice of the sub-urban agricultural land situated in the Revenue Estate of Patti Insar, Panipat, District Karnal. As the petitioners late father was a sitting allottee of that Patti and thus had a preferential right for allotment of the suburban area and because the area already allotted to the petitioners father was contiguous to the area requested to be allotted by them in satisfaction of their claim, the Tehsildar (Sales)-cum-Managing Officer, respondent No. 4, found the request in accordance with law and after approving the same forwarded the necessary papers to the joint Secretary (Rehabilitation), respondent No. 3. Though this reference to the Joint Secretary (Rehabilitation) was not a statutory' or procedural requirement, as the Managing Officer himself was competent to make the necessary allotment to the displaced person in satisfaction of their unsatisfied claims under, S.20 of the said Act, read with the provisions of the Land Resettlement Manual by Dr. Tirlok Singh, yet on the administrative side it was considered advisable and appropriate by the Tehsildar (Sales)-cum-Managing Officer to have the approval of the Joint Secretary (Rehabilitation) also as the decisions taken by him were subject to the final approval of the Joint Secretary (Rehabilitation). However, Tehsildar (Sales)-cum-Managing Officer, did not receive the requisite approval for quite some time despite repeated representations and requests made by the petitioners. Ultimately, on October 26, 1987, the communication (Annexure-P.5) was sent by the Assistant Registrar, Rehabilitation Department, Haryana, to the Tehsildar (Sales), Karnal, intimating that the Government had not approved the proposal of sub-urban allotment in village Patti Insar (Panipat). However, it was added that the "allottee may be allotted land in some other villages as per rules and instructions". Aggrieved by this refusal of the Government in the matter of approval of the allotment of land in village Patti Insar (Panipat) to the petitioners, vide communication dated 26th October, 1987 (Annexure-P.5), the petitioners have approached this Court for the quashing of the same on the ground, that it is wholly without jurisdiction, and also for the issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the authorities to make the necessary allotment to compensate the petitioners by making good the deficiency of their unsatisfied claim.