IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.W.P. No. 2038 of 1986 DATE OF DECISION : 01.09.2010 Shanti Parkash and others .... PETITIONERS Versus The State of Haryana and others ..... RESPONDENTS CORAM :- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL Present: Mr. Sumeet Sheokand, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr. G.S. Chahal, Addl. A.G., Haryana. * * * SATISH KUMAR MITTAL , J In the present petition, the petitioners have challenged the order dated 4.11.1967 (Annexure P-2), passed by the Tehsildar (Sales), Kaithal (respondent No.3 herein), whereby their application to purchase the land in question was dismissed; the order dated 12.11.1980 (Annexure P-3), passed by the Joint Secretary (Rehabilitation)-cum-Settlement Commissioner, Haryana, Chandigarh, vide which again the prayer made by the petitioners for transfer of the land in question in their favour was rejected; and the order dated 20.8.1985 (Annexure P-4), whereby application of the petitioners under Rule 15 of the Package Deal Rules, 1962 (hereinafter referred to as `the Rules'), for referring the matter to the Arbitrator was CWP No. 2038 of 1986 -2- dismissed. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioners had taken 127 acres of land situated in village Pabnawa on lease under the provisions of the East Punjab Utilization of Lands Act, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as `the Act'). On the basis of their possession on the said land, in terms of the press note issued in the year 1962, on 28.8.1962, the petitioners moved an application before respondent No.3 for purchasing the same at a reserve price of ` 450/- per square acre. It is the case of the petitioners that till June, 1967, they did not hear any thing from respondent No.3 about the said application. On 10.7.1967, their application was taken for consideration and they were directed to produce proof in support of their claim. By the time, the case was again taken up on 25.10.1967, the other instructions with regard to transfer of the land to the lessee at the fixed marked value were issued on 17.10.1967, according to which, respondent No.3 fixed the market value of the land at ` 2,200/- per acre for irrigated land and at ` 1,600/- per acre for non-irrigated land. The petitioners were asked to deposit the said amount by 25.10.1967, which was objected to by them as being excessive. Therefore, ultimately, vide order dated 4.11.1967 (Annexure P-2), their application to purchase the land was dismissed. Against the said order, the petitioners filed an appeal before the Chief Settlement Commissioner, Haryana (respondent No.2 herein), which was also dismissed on 27.8.1969. The petitioners did not further challenge those orders. In the meantime, the Collector, Kaithal, cancelled the lease in favour of the petitioners and CWP No. 2038 of 1986 -3- respondent No.3 was directed to auction the land. Subsequently, the proceedings for recovering possession of the land under the provisions of the Act were initiated against the petitioners. The petitioners challenged those proceedings, but the writ petition as well as the SLP, filed by them, were dismissed. Thereafter, the petitioners again applied to respondent No.3 for transfer of the land to them at reserve price, fixed by the latest instructions issued by the Rehabilitation Department. The said request was turned down by respondent No.3 on 23.4.1973. Against the said order, a revision petition was filed before respondent No.2. During the pendency of that revision petition, the petitioners were evicted from the land and the same was re-auctioned, in pursuance of which the third party came in possession of the land. Ultimately, the revision petition filed by the petitioners was also dismissed vide order dated 12.11.1980 (Annexure P-3). Against the said order, the petitioners filed an application under Rule 15 of the Rules for referring the matter to the Arbitrator and vide order dated 20.8.1985 (Annexure P-4), the said application was dismissed. Hence, this petition. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the petitioners has not disputed the fact that in the year 1973, the petitioners were dispossessed from the land in question and after re-auctioning the land, its possession was given to third party, who has not been impleaded in the instant writ petition. The prayer of the petitioners in this petition is that they were in possession of the land and they had fulfilled all the conditions CWP No. 2038 of 1986 -4- of transfer of the land, as laid down in the press note issued in the year 1962, at a reserve price of ` 450/- per square acre, but their prayer was not considered within time and it was arbitrarily kept pending upto the year 1967. He further argued that in the year 1967 also, the petitioners were never informed about the exact amount to be deposited by them as well as the date by which it was to be deposited. He further submits that without giving any proper information and detail, the prayer of the petitioners to purchase the land was rejected on 4.11.1967, while holding that they did not want to purchase the land. It is the argument of the learned counsel that the petitioners had never expressed any intention not to purchase the land. Actually, they were ready to purchase the same, but due to non-supply of the correct price and the exact amount to be deposited, the amount could not be deposited, therefore, the impugned order dated 4.11.1967 (Annexure P-2) is liable to be set aside and the petitioners are entitled for transfer of the said land. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents submits that at this stage, when the petitioners are not in possession of the land since the year 1973 and the land was later on auctioned to the third party, who has not been impleaded as a party in this petition, no relief can be granted to the petitioners. He argued that in the year 1967, the petitioners were given a reasonable opportunity to purchase the land at the rate of ` 2,200/- per acre for irrigated land and at ` 1,600/- per acre for non-irrigated land, which was a very reasonable price, but for the reasons best known to the petitioners, CWP No. 2038 of 1986 -5- they did not avail the said opportunity. Thereafter, ejectment proceedings were initiated against them under the provisions of the Act and they were evicted in accordance with law. When their claim was rejected upto the Apex Court, they were dispossessed according to the eviction order and thereafter, the land was auctioned and possession was given to the person, who had taken the land in auction. Therefore, the petitioners have no case, at all. After hearing the arguments of learned counsel for the parties and going through the impugned orders, we do not find any merit in the instant petition. It has been clearly noticed in the impugned order dated 4.11.1967 (Annexure P-2) that when claim of the petitioners for transfer of the land under the press note was taken into consideration, by that time, fresh instructions were issued by the State, according to which the evacuee land could be transferred to the lessee at the reserve rate of ` 2,200/- per acre for irrigated land and at ` 1,600/- per acre for non-irrigated land and offer was given to the petitioners to purchase the same, but they failed to deposit the requisite amount by 4.11.1967. Therefore, their application was dismissed. The appeal against the said order was also dismissed and thereafter, the petitioners did not challenge the said order. Admittedly, now the petitioners are not in possession of the land and the third party, who is in possession of the same, has not been impleaded as party in this petition. The application filed by the petitioners under Rule 15 of the Package Deal CWP No. 2038 of 1986 -6- Rules, 1962 (hereinafter referred to as `the Rules'), for referring the matter to the Arbitrator has also been rightly dismissed vide order dated 20.8.1985 (Annexure P-4),as by that time, the petitioners were not in possession of the land and the land was auctioned to the third party. In these facts, in my opinion, no relief can be granted to the petitioners. No merit. Dismissed. September 01, 2010 ( SATISH KUMAR MITTAL ) ndj JUDGE