RSA No.2755 of 1995 :1: In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh. Date of decision: January 30, 2008. Kaka Singh ... Appellant. Versus Union of India and another. ... Respondents. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PERMOD KOHLI Present: Mr.B.S. Sehgal, Advocate,for the appellant. Mr.S.K. Sharma, Standing Counsel Central Government, for respondent No.1. Ms.Monica Chhibbar Sharma,AAG, Punjab, for respondent No.2. PERMOD KOHLI, J. (Oral): This is plaintiff's Regular Second Appeal against the judgments and decrees of the learned Courts below. Both the learned Courts below have concurrently rejected the contention of the plaintiff regarding the allotment of land and declined to grant mandatory injunction as claimed in the plaint. Briefly stated, the facts as emerge from the record are that the plaintiff was in the Defence Service in R.O.B.E.G, Roorkee ( U.P.) as a Sepoy No.1419836. The plaintiff joined the Army in the year 1954 as Sepoy and during the conflict of Indo-Pak war in 1965 in Khem Karan RSA No.2755 of 1995 :2: Sector suffered injuries as a result of a Bomb Blast during the operation. He lost both his eyes and discharged from service on 17.09.1970 from the Army being assessed by the Army Medical Board as Medical category. It is alleged in the plaint that the Senior Army Officers viz. Col. Siri Ram, Welfare Officer, Central Command Lucknow; General Manak Shah, GOC, GN Chaudhary and Gen. Harbax Singh had assured and recommended to the Punjab Government through the Deputy Commissioner, Ropar, to give the plaintiff a parcel of land about 30 acres free of cost and also grant of Rs.one lac ex-gratia and Rs.1000/- for family maintenance per month and one house for living. The plaintiff claimed to have approached all the authorities, but the Government has not kept the promise and consequently, the plaintiff filed the present suit claiming the following relief:- (i) Rs.one lac in cash; (ii) 30 acres agriculture land; (iii) one thousand per month for maintenance of family; (iv) one house for living; (v) to provide one eye to the plaintiff from any of the eye banks of Government of India in lieu of loss of eyes. The defendants i.e. the Union of India as also the State of Punjab, filed separate written statements and contested the suit and has raised various preliminary objections. From the perusal of the written statements, I am at pain to see that in this case also, the Union of India and the State of Punjab have behaved with the petitioner like an ordinary RSA No.2755 of 1995 :3: unscruplous litigant and have raised frivolous objections to the maintainability of the suit. As far as the merits of the case are concerned, it has been stated on behalf of defendant No.1, Union of India that there is no recommendation on record, which can support the contention of the plaintiff regarding his claim for the allotment of land free of costs. It is, however, contended in the written statement that the plaintiff has been granted pensionary benefits known as War Injury pay as per terms and conditions of his service in the Indian Army:- (a) Service element Rs.375/- p.m. (b) Disability element Rs.450/- p.m. (c ) Dearness relief at the current rate of 23% on the amount shown at (a) and (b) above. It is further stated that in addition to the above benefits, the plaintiff is also being paid Rs.300/- per month as Constant Attendance Allowance keeping in view his 100 per cent disability alongwith Special Pension of Rs.50/- per month granted on account of blindness of both eyes. It is also stated that nothing more is to be paid by the Union of India to the plaintiff. Defendant No.2, State of Punjab, in its written statement has also pleaded that no recommendation has been received from the Union of India regarding allotment of land to the plaintiff and that there is no contract between the parties i.e. the State of Punjab and the the plaintiff for payment of any compensation. It is, however, mentioned that the land is given to the defence personnel as per availability as a measure of good will under the government policy. It is further pleaded that the State of Punjab is RSA No.2755 of 1995 :4: not under any obligation to pay anything more to the plaintiff. However, it is stated that pursuant to the policy of the State Government, the plaintiff has been allotted 10 acres of land by the Punjab Government in village Sowara. Various other benefits stated to be given to the plaintiff, are as under:- (a) Allotted 10 acres of land by the Punjab State Govt. in village Sowara. (b) He is getting the monthly pension of Rs.1015/- (excluding Rs.300/- p.m. as Constant Attendance Allowance and Rs.50/- p.m. as special pension for blind personnel) from the Central Govt. Blind Pension of Rs.100/- p.m. is also paid by the Punjab State out of the Punjab Amalgamated Fund Rs.25/- p.m. is given by Kendriya Sainik Board as a donation from Group Benevolent Fund. (c ) One of the sons of the plaintiff is serving in Army. (d) Rs.100/- p.m. on account of stipend for MBBS class to his son Sh. Avtar Singh has been paid for 1987-88 out of Punjab Amalgamated Fund by the Director Sainik Welfare, Punjab. (e) The various financial assistance have been given to the plaintiff from 1965 to 1988. RSA No.2755 of 1995 :5: The trial Court framed as many as seven issues vide its order dated 20.07.1989:- 1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for mandatory injunction as alleged? OPP 2. Whether the plaintiff has no cause of action to file the present suit? OPD 3. Whether the court has no territorial jurisdiction to try the suit as alleged? OPD 4. Whether the suit has not been properly valued for the purpose of Court fee and jurisdiction? OPD 5. Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form? OPD 6. Whether the plaintiff has no cause of action against defendant No.2? OPD-2 7. Whether no notice under Section 80 CPC was served on the State of Punjab? If so, its effect? OPD-2. 8. Relief. RSA No.2755 of 1995 :6: The main issue being issue No.1 whether plaintiff is entitled for mandatory injunction as prayed for. In support of that, the plaintiff stated that he suffered injuries in Khem Karan Sector during the operation. He has also given the details of the pension being received by him. The trial Court on the basis of the evidence and pleadings of the parties, dismissed the suit vide judgment and decree dated 26.04.1990. Aggrieved of the same, the plaintiff preferred an appeal before the learned Additional District Judge, Chandigarh. The appeal also resulted in dismissal vide judgment and decree dated 26.08.1995. Vide order dated 18.09.2002, this case was ordered to be put up before the Lok Adalat for settlement. Vide its order dated 25.02.2003, the Lok Adalat made the following observations:- “ The appellant was allotted 10 acres of land being person belonging to reserved category on a concessional rate. As per stand of the State Government now projected, probable, this was the same land which should be treated as being given to him on account of his disability suffered during his service in the army. Apart from that there is a letter from the Union of India allotting six acres of land at their instance. It is not clear as to when the same was allotted and where that land is situated. Counsel for the Union of India is given copy of that letter to seek instructions from the Department. To come up on May 15, 2003. In the meantime, State of Punjab may also clarify as to RSA No.2755 of 1995 :7: which land was allotted to the appellant being a disabled army personnel on account of 1965 war. Copies of the order be supplied to the counsel/parties.” In response to the aforesaid observations, Ms. Monica Chhibbar Sharma, learned A.A.G., Punjab, submits that since there was no rule or provisions for allotment of land free of costs to the plaintiff, no land could be allotted. However, the petitioner has been allotted 10 acres of land in village Sowara by the State Government on concessional rates at the rate of Rs.430/- per acre. However, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant has stated that the land to which the State of Punjab is referring to, was purchased by the plaintiff-appellant being a Scheduled Caste person, which was meant for the benefit to the persons belonging to the Scheduled Caste Community. Except the land aforesaid, there is nothing on record to show that any other land has been allotted to the plaintiff. The learned counsel has further argued that the Central Government has also issued a letter No.NE-4/1419836/RG/238/R dated 29.09.1983 issued by N.Jalaluddin, Major, Senior Record Officer, Bengal Engineer Group, Roorkee-247667. However, no such letter is available on the file. The only question that arises for consideration is whether this Court can enforce any such a commitment, which is stated to be made by some officials of the Army when there is no rule or even administrative instructions on record whereunder the concession of allotment of land to a army personnel, who suffered severe injuries in a War, can be allotted. RSA No.2755 of 1995 :8: Otherwise also, such policy decisions are not enforceable in law. Both the learned Courts below rightly declined the relief of mandatory injunction to the plaintiff-appellant. Even though this Court has great sympathy for the appellant but there is no ground to interfere in the impugned judgment. It is necessary to observe that the State of Punjab, in its reply has categorically stated that 10 acres of land has been allotted to the plaintiff-appellant and subsequently, it is found that the land was purchased by the plaintiff- appellant as a Scheduled Caste candidate. It is desired that the State of Punjab, should re-examine the question of allotment of land as no land has been allotted to the plaintiff-appellant at all. The State should honour its commitment/assurance to an Army personnel, who has suffered injuries and lost his both the eyes in a Bomb blast, while defending the Country. A copy of this order be forwarded to the Chief Secretary, Government of Punjab, for consideration and necessary action. In view of the above, appeal is disposed of. 30.01.2008. (PERMOD KOHLI) BLS JUDGE Note: Whether to be referred to the Reporter: YES/ NO RSA No.2755 of 1995 :9: