Jaisa Ram vs The Financial Commissioner (Revenue)

Paramjit Singh Patwalia, J.

CM No. 7692 of 2014

Allowed, as prayed for. Annexures P-15 to P-24 are taken on record.

CWP No. 4758 of 2014

Instant civil writ petition has been filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India for quashing the order dated 04.03.2011 (Annexure P-3) passed by respondent no. 2 and order dated 03.12.2013 (Annexure P-9) passed by respondent no. 1 and for allowing petition dated 04.06.2009 (Annexure P-4) filed u/s 24 read with Section 25(2) of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954 (in short ''1954 Act'') whereby prayer for allotment of deficient land as per entitlement of the petitioner has been made.

Brief facts relevant for disposal of the present petition are to the effect that Sh. Chattu Ram, father of the petitioner, was a resident of Bhawalpur State which is now a part of Pakistan. After partition, father of petitioner had settled in Punjab and as per govt. policy, non-resident Punjabis, who had migrated from Pakistan at the time of partition of the country, were not entitled to allotment of land. Only the residents of erstwhile Punjab were entitled to the allotment. However, if some land remained to be un-utilized, then their claim was to be considered subject to reference made by the Central Government. In pursuance of the said policy, application was moved by the petitioner for allotment of land vide case No. MO/HQ/Reh. dated 02.08.1998 before respondent no. 3. The said claim was considered and rejected by the Additional Director Consolidation of Holdings, Punjab-cum-Managing Officer (HQ), Department of Rehabilitation, Punjab, Chandigarh vide order dated 10.09.2001 and following order was passed:

xxxx

Today Sh. G.S. Nagra, counsel for the applicant is present. The case file has been perused. Learned counsel for the applicant has admitted that claimant is a non-Punjabi claimant and his name has never been included in the lists of non-Punjabi claimants sent by Central govt. from time to time for allotting the land in Punjab. The photocopy produced by applicant relates to order dated 07.02.1959 by Additional Commissioner, Jaisalmer House, New Delhi in which entitlement of Chattu Ram was determined. This order/communication has not been endorsement/addressed to Punjab Govt. So being a non-Punjabi claimant, no relief can be given on the present application. In the cases of non-Punjabi claimants land can be allotted in those cases which are specifically sent by Central Govt. for providing land. The applicant''s father''s case has never been sent to Punjab Govt., Central govt. So the present application is not maintainable. Hence, it is dismissed.

I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record.

On a specific question put to learned counsel for the petitioner, he has failed to answer whether any appeal or revision was filed against the said order dated 10.09.2001, perusal of the record also reveals that there is no document on record whereby the said order had been challenged. The petitioner has again filed the application claiming the same very relief for allotment of deficient land on account of the land allegedly left by his father in Bhawalpur State. The matter was considered by the Claims Commissioner under the provisions of the Punjab Package Deal Properties (Disposal) Amendment Act, 2009 (in short ''Amended Act, 2009). It needs to be mentioned that 1954 Act has already been repealed in the year 2005. The petitioner has claimed the relief by taking the benefit of provision of Section 4-B of the Amended Act, 2009 wherein period for filing claims has been extended. Perusal of the said provision reveals that the same is applicable to the pending cases for disposal so that rights of the parties in those cases may not be affected. The claim of the petitioner was rejected on 10.09.2001 and 1954 Act was repealed in the year 2005. Once the claim of the petitioner was rejected and he had not availed remedy of filing appeal or revision, whatever available to him in accordance with law, the petitioner cannot avail the benefit of Amended Act, 2009.

Otherwise also, the petitioner filed the claim in the year 1998, whereas, he had to approach Managing Officer (HQ) on or before 31.12.1963 in view of provisions of Rule 67-A of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Rules, 1955. The petitioner filed the claim application after 35 years from the date of limitation. Even if it is assumed for the sake of argument that petitioner was making repeated representation, it would not be a ground to condone the delay. This view of mine is supported with the judgment of the Hon''ble Apex Court in Union of India (UOI) and Others Vs. Har Dayal, The relevant para of the said judgment is quoted hereunder for ready reference:

This Court has repeatedly held that merely giving representation will neither extend the limitation nor wipe out the delay and laches.

In view of above discussion, I do not find any merit in the present writ petition.

Dismissed.