High Court of Punjab and HaryanaCWP/12170/2017dismissed

Tehal Singh Etc v. State Of Punjab Etc

2017-05-31Mr. Justice Arun Monga2 pages

CWP No.12170 of 2017 -1IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No.12170 of 2017 Date of Decision.31.05.2017 Tehal Singh and others ........Petitioners Vs State of Punjab and another .....Respondents

Present:

Mr. J.K. Singla, Advocate for the petitioner.

CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL -.- AMIT RAWAL J.(ORAL) The petitioners are aggrieved of the impugned order dated 13.12.2013 (Annexure P-5) whereby their application submitted to the Spl. Secretary Revenue-cum-Claims Commissioner, Punjab, exercising the powers under the Punjab Package Deal Properties (Disposal) Amendment Act, 2009 has been dismissed.

The provisions of Rule 67-A of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Rules, 1955 would not be attracted, in view of the fact that predecessor-in-interest of the petitioner was allotted 24 kanals 1 marla of land and land measuring 9 kanals 7 marlas has yet to be allotted to make up the deficiency. Jamabandies of the Pakistan are testament to the same. All these factors have not been taken into consideration by the revenue authorities and therefore, the order under challenge is not sustainable.

I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner, appraised the paper book and of the view that the impugned order is perfectly legal and justified and do not call for interference, as there is no force in the argument PANKAJ KUMAR 2017.06.01 17:43 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CWP No.12170 of 2017 -2on the premise that the application aforementioned has been moved after 50 years i.e. in the year 2013 with regard to deficiency. The land already vested in the State and must have been utilized. No explanation has come forth for moving the application at such belated stage. Even Section 4-B of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954 envisages that proceedings should be pending before the competent authority for allotment of land or possession on 05.09.2005 when Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954 was repealed.

The case of the petitioner, thus, in my view suffers from delay and latches and rightly, has been declined. I do not find any reason to interfere with the order under challenge. The writ petition is dismissed. (AMIT RAWAL) JUDGE May 31, 2017 Pankaj* Whether speaking/reasoned Yes Whether reportable No PANKAJ KUMAR 2017.06.01 17:43 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document