Ram Singh vs Union of India and Ors.

D.V. Sehgal, J.—It is an unfortunate case where even after lapse of 40 years since the partition of the country, the petitioner has not yet been allotted land in satisfaction of his verified claim in respect of the land left by him in West Pakistan

The petitioner and his brother Partap Chand jointly owned considerable area of agricultural land in Village Darkot, District Hazara (N.W.F.P). The petitioner submitted his claim in respect of his share of land to the land Claims Officer, which was duly verified vide order, dated June 12, 1952 Annexure P1. HIs claim in terms of standard acres and units was verified to be of 4 standard acres 21/2 units. He had been making repeated applications for allotment of land in lieu of his verified claim, as is evident from Annexures P2, P3, and P4. It was only May 31, 1976, Annexure P. 5 that after imposing Punjab, cut, the petitioner was declared entitled by respondent No.1 to allotment of 3 standard acres 17 units of land and a letter to this effect was addressed to the Lands Claims officer, Punjab/Haryana Government, vide which they were requested to allot land to him to the above extent.

It should be noted here that Partap Chand, the brother of the petitioner, was allotted 11 standard acres 51/2 units of land in village Tibbi Arain, Tehsil Jagadhri, District Ambala. It appears that allotment to him was made in respect of the entire land including the share of the petitioner. Later on, however, it was found that Partap Chand was holding 6 standard acres 61/4 units of land in excess of his entitlement. The area to this extent in his favour was cancelled by the Assistant RegistrarcumManaging Officer, vide order dated June 9, 1972. The appeal and revision filed by Partap Chand were dismissed by the authorities under the Displace Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954 (for short the `Act'') Partap Chand contended in his appeal and revision that as his brother, the petitioner, had not been given his due allotment for his share of land, the petitioner, should be allotted land out of the excess area found with Partap Chand. This plea of his was, however, rejected and an order was passed to the effect that Partap Chand should be allowed to purchase the remaining area by payment of its price and if he failed to do so, the excess area with him may be disposed of by auction.

The petitioner, thereafter, pursued his case for allotment of land to him in lieu of his verified claim. It is not disputed that since after migration from West Pakistan, the petitioner has been residing in village Chhachhrauli, Tehsil Jagadhri, District Ambala. It appears that letter Annexure P5 issue by respondent No. 1 to the Land Claims Officer, Punjab/Haryana was not acted upon and no land was allotted to the petitioner. On representation made by him, the Ministry of Supply and Rehabilitation Department of Rehabilitation, Government of India, New Delhi, addressed a letter, dated January 24, 1978, Annexure P8, to the Deputy Secretary, Rehabilitation, Haryana. It was mentioned therein that the petitioner was in possession of land in village Tibbi Bakhar, Tehsil Jagadhri, District Ambala, so he should be allotted that land in lieu of his verified claim in Haryana. He made a petition to the Chief Settlement Commissioner, Haryana, on the strength of the letter, but the same was rejected vide order Annexure P9 on the ground that the petitioner had migrated from NorthWestFrontierProvince and not from West Punjab. The Haryana Government had already exhausted its quota of allotment of land to nonPunjabi claimants as fixed by the Central Government and, in fact, more area than the quota fixed by the Central Government had been allotted. The petitioner, being a nonPunjabi Claimant, no allotment in his favour could, therefore, be made from the evacuee land forming part of `package deal property'' with the State of Haryana. The petitioner was advised to approach the Central Government for allotment of land, if he so liked. The petitioner filed a revision petition under Section 33 of the Act which was, however, dismissed by the Financial Commissioner, Haryana, exercising the powers of the Central Government, vide order dated February 27, 1979, Annexure P10. He then challenged both the orders Annexures P9 and P10 by filing Civil Writ Petition No. 3772 of 1979 in this Court, but the same was dismissed in limine on October, 24, 1979.

The petitioner then addressed a representation, Annexure P11, dated November 13, 1979, to the Chief Settlement Commissioner, Rehabilitation Department, Government of India, Jaiselmer House, New Delhi, When no response to the same was received, he addressed an application Annexure P12 dated June 19, 1980 to the Deputy Minister for Supply and Rehabilitation, Union of India, New Delhi, making a request that his verified claim should be adjusted against the agricultural land which was already in his possession at village Tibbi Bakkar Wala, Tehsil Jagadhri, District Ambala but again no response was received. He then sent a notice under Section 80 Code of Civil Procedure, on March, 15, 1982, Annexure P13, to the Union of India as also to the State of haryana for allotment of land to him in lieu of his verified claim at village Tibbi Bakhar Wala. He sent a subsequent reminder through his counsel, Annexure P14, on June 7, 1982, but without any response. He then filed the present, writ petition in this Court for issuance of a writ of mandamus of the respondents directing them to do their duty in accordance with law and to make allotment of acquired evacuee rural agricultural land to him in village Tibbi Arain, Tehsil Jagadhari, District Ambala.

Union of India respondent No. 1 has not chosen to file any written statement nor is represented before me despite service. Written statement has, however, been filed on behalf of respondents Nos. 2 and 3. They have maintained that the petitioner being a claimant of nonPunjabi origin having migrated from N.W.F.P could not be allotted any land in the State of Haryana, as the quota of land for nonPunjabi out of package deal land'' had already been exhausted.

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. I find that it is appropriate and expedient that a writ of mandamus should be issued to the respondents to allot land to the petitioner is lieu of his verified claim as a displaced person from West Pakistan.

It is to be noted that the Act defines "displaced person" in Section 2(b) to mean any person who on account of the setting up of the Dominious of Indian and Pakistan, or on account of Civil disturbances or the fear of such disturbances in any area now forming part of West Pakistan, has after the first day of March, 1947, left, or been displaced from his place of residence in such area and who has been subsequently residing in India, and includes any person who is resident in any place now forming part of India and who for that reason in unable or has been rendered unable to manage, supervise or control any immovable property belonging to him in West Pakistan, and also includes the successorsininterest of any such person.

Again "West Pakistan" has been defined in Section 2(g) of the Action to mean the territories of Pakistan excluding the province of East Bengal and includes the tribal area of Tochi and Kurram, and such other tribal areas adjoining the NorthWestFrontierProvince as may be specified in this behalf by order of the Central Government.

Rule 66 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Rules, 1955 (for short `the Rule''), inter alia, lays down thus :

"Agricultural land available for allotment in any State shall be allotted, in the first instance, to persons having verified claim in respect of agricultural land, who are domiciled in that State."

No doubt, prior to coming into force of the Act, the Resettlement Manual prepared under the Administration of Evacuee property Act, 1950, provided that refugees from Singh NorthWest Frontier Provincee etc. who are not of Punjabi extraction would be rehabilitated outside East Punjab, but the provisions of this Manual stood superseded by the provisions of the Act and there remained no distinction between the persons who migrated from West Punjab. NorthEstFrontier province, Singh or Buluchistan; all of them were treated as displaced person under the provisions of the Act. As is evident from Rule 66 cited above, agricultural land which was evacuee property and vested in the Government under Section 12 of the Act available for allotment in any State is to be allotted in the first instance to the persons having verified claim in respect of agricultural land who are domiciled in that State. It is thus clear that the petitioner being a domicile of the State of Haryana should have been allotted land in the first instance out of the land available under Section 12 of the Act in the State of Haryana but, unfortunately, this has not been done and the plea of the petitioner to this effect has been turned down vide orders Annexures P9 and P10 respectively.

In this situation, it was incumbent on the Union of India respondent No. 1 to satisfy the verified claim of the petitioner and allot him land anywhere in India out of the land which vested in the Government under Section 12 of the Act. But despite representations and notices already detailed above, the needful has not been done.

I, therefore, allow this petition and issue a writ of mandamus directing respondent No. 1 to allot land to the petitioner in satisfaction of the verified claim for the land left by him in West Pakistan preferably within the State of Haryana of which he is a domicile since the time of his migration from West Pakistan and, if necessary, issue direction of respondents Nos. 2 and 3 to this effect. The land should be allotted to the petitioner in lieu of his verified claim within three months from today. The petitioner shall also get costs of this petition from respondent No. 1 which are assessed at Rs. 500/.