C.W.P No. 3413 of 1987 (O&M) ::1:: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P No. 3413 of 1987 (O&M) Date of decision : September 29, 2010 Chuhar Ram and others, ...... Petitioners v. The State of Haryana, ...... Respondent *** CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI *** Present : Mr. B.S.Bedi, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. A.K.Gupta, Addl. A.G Haryana for the respondent. *** 1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ? *** AJAY TEWARI, J (Oral) By this writ petition, the petitioners have challenged the action of the respondent in cancelling the allotment of land made in their favour. It is not in dispute that the petitioners were in possession of different parcels of land in villages Bijgaon and Urlana Khurd, Tehsil Thanesar, District Kurukshetra. Under the Rules for Sale of Surplus Rural Properties, 1962, a scheme was framed by the Haryana Government whereby evacuee land in possession of Harijans was to be disposed off by way of restricted auction in which only Harijans could participate. C.W.P No. 3413 of 1987 (O&M) ::2:: Petitioner No.1 purchased 2 Standard Acres and 15.1/4 Units on 4.6.1968, petitioner No.2 purchased 3 Standard Acres and 2 Units on 24.11.1977, petitioner No.3 purchased 1 Standard Acre and 7 Units on 24.1.1979 and petitioner No.4 purchased 0 Standard Acre and 5 Units on 24.11.1981. It is alleged and not disputed that at every successive auction, full details of the land owned by petitioner No.1 were disclosed. The auction/s were also confirmed as per law. After one and half year of the last auction, vide order dated 6.3.1986 (Annexure P-1), notice was issued to the petitioners to show cause as to why the purchase of more than 5 Standard Acres of land by them be not cancelled since as per the policy only 5 Standard Acres could be purchased by a Harijan family. Counsel for the petitioners has argued that the sale having been confirmed it could not have been cancelled merely by giving a show cause notice. He has further argued that once it is admitted that the petitioners had disclosed all the previous auction purchases and had thereafter purchased the land in open auction and had now remained in possession thereof for the last more than three decades, it would be too harsh and pedantic to set aside the auction. It is further argued that the instructions (Annexure P-5) do not define the word `family' and in fact the word used is `person'. It is further mentioned that petitioners No.2, 3 and 4 had filed affidavits to the effect that they were living separately from petitioner No.1. With the written statement, the respondent has placed on record the Punjab Government, Department of Rehabilitation instructions dated 22.11.1965 whereby the original policy was laid down. Even in this policy what is mentioned is as follow :- “iv) As at present, the area sold to Harijan in restricted C.W.P No. 3413 of 1987 (O&M) ::3:: auction should be limited to 5 S.A including his own holding.” Counsel for the respondent has relied upon the instructions (Annexure R-1), which is in the nature of clarificatory memorandum to canvas that as per the said memorandum, the spirit of the instructions had to be kept in mind and if different members of one family were permitted to purchase land it would defeat the purpose of levying a ceiling. In my opinion, both in the original instructions (Annexure R-2) and the subsequent instructions (Annexure P-5), the word used is `person/Harijan' and not `family'. Even in the memorandum, relied upon by counsel for the respondent, I find that it has been clarified that the sons who are independent and are living independently from their parents can purchase land independently. Thus, purchase by the different members of the family would not be hit either by the instructions, Annexure R-2, Annexure P-5 or Annexure R-1. In this view of the matter, in my opinion this writ petition has to be allowed. Consequently, this writ petition is allowed and the order (Annexure P-2) is set aside. No order as to costs. ( AJAY TEWARI ) September 29, 2010. JUDGE `kk'