Amrit Singh vs Union of India and Others

Rakesh Kumar Jain, J.—The petitioner''s predecessors-in-interest, namely, Gopal Singh and Dalip Singh sons of Inder Singh migrated to India during partition and became displaced persons within the definition of Section 2(e) of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954 [for short ''the Act'']. The predecessors-in-interest of the petitioner filed their ''Mutalba-claim'' under the provisions of Punjab Refugees (Registration of Land Claims) Ordinance, 1948, which was verified to the extent of 9-101/2 std. acres (4-131/4 std. acres each), in lieu of the land abandoned in Pakistan. Between the years 1949-1950, the land to the extent of 4-131/4 std. acres each was allotted in the name of Gopal Singh and Dalip Singh in Village Mandwal, District Kaithal and possession was also delivered but as they were also allotted land in village Pathrali, Tehsil Kama, District Bharatpur (Rajasthan), where they had settled, the land of Village Mandwal, District Kaithal was got cancelled by them. The cancellation order was passed by Additional Custodian, Jallandhar on 9.1.1952. They continued to pursue the matter with the Rehabilitation Authorities in the Jaisalmer House, New Delhi for permanent allotment in Rajasthan. On 13.11.1969, Rajasthan Rehabilitation Authorities issued notice to the predecessors-in-interest of the petitioner to deposit the price of the allotted land which was allegedly deposited by them. Thereafter, they started pursuing their claim with the Rehabilitation, Authorities of the State of Haryana for restoring their allotment or to provide alternative land in lieu of land of Village Mandwal, District Kaithal. Since their prayer was not accepted, they filed C.W.P. No. 1891 of 2008, which was decided by a Division Bench on 23.1.2009 along with C.W.P. No. 7025 of 2007. The petitioner filed application, for satisfying the claim, before respondent No. 4, which was decided on 6.7.2010 on the ground that the petitioner should have made application before 31.12.1963 under the provisions of DP (C & R) Act, 1954, which was repealed by the Act No. 38/2005.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the predecessors-in-interest of the petitioner had got allotment of land at Village Mandwal, District Kaithal but since they got allotment of land in Village Pathrali, District Bharatpur, Rajasthan as well, they honestly moved application before the competent authority for cancellation of their allotment in Village Mandwal, District Kaithal, which was actually cancelled on 19.1.1952 and the problem started when Rajasthan Government did not accept the prayer for allotment of the land to the predecessors-in-interest of the petitioner against their claim and forced them to pay the price of the land.

Learned counsel for the State has submitted that there is no evidence on record that the predecessors-in-interest of the petitioner had paid price of the land to the Rajasthan Government because the petitioner has placed on record only notice dated 13.11.1969.

I have repeatedly asked learned counsel for the petitioner about the evidence of deposit of price of the land to the Rajasthan Government by the predecessors-in-interest of the petitioner pursuant to the notice dated 13.11.1969 (Annexure P-5) but there was no satisfactory answer. Even no evidence has been brought on record in this regard. It is also submitted that the land falling in the State of Haryana is governed by the Haryana Evacuee Properties (Management and Disposal) Act, 2008 which has been amended in 2010. The claim put forth by the petitioner to the Tehsildar (Sales), Kaithal vide application dated 19.3.2009 for allotment of land was hopelessly time barred and the same was rejected by the Tehsildar (Sales), Kaithal vide his order dated 6.7.2010. It is also alleged that the petitioner should have filed appeal against that order but without exhausting that remedy, the present writ petition has been filed. It is also submitted that the petitioner has not made Rajasthan State as a party which is a necessary party for adjudication of this case as the petitioner himself said that the land was allotted to his predecessors-in-interest in village Pathrali, Tehsil Kama, District Bharatpur (Rajasthan).

After hearing learned counsel for the parties and keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the considered opinion that the predecessors-in-interest of the petitioner themselves got cancelled the allotment of land at Village Mandwal, District Kaithal in 1952 because of the reason that they were residing in Rajasthan and were allotted land by the Rehabilitation Department of Rajasthan as well. His predecessors-in-interest were given notice (Annexure P-5) to deposit some amount of the land allotted in. Rajasthan but since it was not deposited, allotment was not finally made. Since the predecessors-in-interest of the petitioner found that they would not be able to get allotment in Rajasthan, the application has been filed in Haryana for the purpose of restoring the land at Village Mandwal, District Kaithal or in alternative prayed for allotment of some other land. The argument of learned counsel for the petitioner that amount claimed by the Rajasthan Government vide public notice (Annexure P-5) has been deposited is concerned, there is no evidence to prove the payment for procurement of that land. Keeping in view the totality of circumstances, I do not find any error in the impugned order and the petition is thus, hereby dismissed.