IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA RSA No.5 of 2005 Date of decision : September 29, 2008 State of H.P. and others …Appellants. Versus Smt. Laxmi Devi and another …Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surjit Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Appellants : Mr. P.M. Negi, Deputy Advocate General. For the Respondents : Mr. G.R. Palsara, Advocate. Surjit Singh, Judge( Oral ) The present Regular Second Appeal filed by the State of Himachal Pradesh through Secretary (GAD), Secretary (Revenue) and District Collector, Mandi, was admitted on the following substantial questions of law: 1. Whether the judgment and decree under challenge is vitiated for misreading and mis- appreciation of evidence so led by the parties? 2. Whether the judgment under question is vitiated for complete misreading of the minutes of meeting of Freedom Fighter Welfare Council? 2. Facts relevant for deciding the appeal and determining the aforesaid two substantial questions of law may be noticed. Late Shri Sidhu was admittedly a freedom fighter, as he was prosecuted and convicted for his having participated in freedom struggle. He was convicted of the offence of conspiracy Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? …2… to wage war against the State and sentenced to transportation for his entire natural life. Also, his entire property was confiscated. His immoveable property, which formed part of the confiscated property, consisted of 41 bighas and 15 biswansis land, situate in four different Mohals of District Mandi. In the year 1986, Freedom Fighters Welfare Council took a decision at its meeting held on 28th July, 1986, to restore the confiscated property to the freedom fighters or their legal heirs and in case it was difficult or impossible to restore the immoveable property, to pay them monetary compensation, equivalent to the market value of such property. According to Resolution No.12 passed in the said meeting, minutes whereof are Ex. PY, some sub- committee was to examine all the cases of confiscation/ forfeiture of properties of freedom fighters and to make suitable recommendation for the restoration of the properties or payment of compensation. 3. It appears that enquiry with regard to the confiscation of the property of said late Shri Sidhu was made by field revenue staff. The concerned Tehsildar, on the basis of the report submitted to him by the field staff, made a recommendation to the Deputy Commissioner that the legal heirs of late Shri Sidhu, i.e. the respondents in the present appeal, who shall hereinafter be referred to as plaintiffs, be paid compensation of Rs.1,70,348/-, on account of the forfeiture of the immoveable property of late Shri Sidhu, as it was quite difficult to restore the possession of the immoveable property to them, because of the said property being in possession of a large …3… number of persons, to whom the same had been allotted by the Government. It appears that the Deputy Commissioner forwarded the said recommendation to the State Government, but no decision was taken on that recommendation. Also, there is nothing on the record indicating if any sub-committee, in terms of the aforesaid Resolution No.12, was called upon to enquiry into the claim of the plaintiffs for the restoration of the immoveable property of late Shri Sidhu and the said committee made any recommendation. However, as already noticed, functionaries of the Government, including respondent No.3, Collector, Mandi, found that the plaintiffs were entitled to be compensated, in terms of money, equivalent to the market value of the confiscated land of late Shri Sidhu, and that the amount, at the time of the making of recommendation, was Rs.1,70,348/-. 4. When nothing was paid to the plaintiffs, they filed a suit in the Court of Senior Sub Judge, Mandi, for a declaration that they were entitled to the restoration of the confiscated landed property of late Shri Sidhu, being his legal heirs, in terms of the aforesaid decision of the Freedom Fighters Welfare Council and also for mandatory injunction directing the appellants, who were impleaded as defendants, to restore the possession of the confiscated land and in case it was not possible to restore the same very land, which had been confiscated, to allot some alternative land in lieu thereof and if no alternative land, belonging to the Government, was available, to pay …4… compensation, equivalent to the market value of the confiscated land. 5. Suit was contested by the defendants-appellants. A number of preliminary objections were raised. As regards the merits, it was not disputed that late Shri Sidhu was a freedom fighter and that he had been convicted and sentenced, as aforesaid, and his land measuring 41 bighas 15 biswansis had been confiscated. It was stated that it was not possible to restore the said land to the plaintiffs, because of the same being in possession of some other persons to whom it had been allotted by the Government. It was not denied that the Freedom Fighters Welfare Council had taken the decision at its meeting held on 28th July, 1986, to restore the immoveable confiscated properties of the freedom fighters to their legal heirs and in case it was not possible to restore the land, to pay them compensation, equivalent to the market price of the land. 6. Trial Court rejected all the preliminary objections raised on behalf of the appellants and gave the finding that the plaintiffs were entitled to money equivalent to the market value of the confiscated land of late Shri Sidhu, the freedom fighter. Accordingly, decree was passed. Appellants challenged that decree by filing appeal in the Court of District Judge Mandi, who, after looking into the evidence, dismissed the same. 7. Appellants have now approached this Court. Their contention is that in terms of Resolution No.12 of the Freedom Fighters Welfare Council, passed at the meeting held on 28th July, 1986, order for restoration of the land or payment of …5… compensation could have been passed only on the basis of the recommendation of the sub-committee, referred to in the said Resolution, and that since there was nothing on the record indicating that the sub-committee made any recommendation in favour of the plaintiffs, trial Court was not justified in passing the decree and similarly the first Appellate Court was not justified in affirming the decree passed by the trial Court. 8. Appeal was admitted on the aforesaid substantial questions of law. During the course of hearing of the appeal, learned Deputy Advocate General, representing the appellants, has stated that both the questions pertain to the appreciation of the minutes of the meeting of the Freedom Fighters Welfare Council, held on 28th July, 1986, particularly Resolution No.12 of the same. 9. As already noticed, while summing up the relevant facts, Resolution No.12 provides for enquiry into the claim for restoration of land and in the alternative payment of compensation on the basis of recommendation by a sub committee. It was for the appellants to have got enquired the claim of the plaintiffs from such sub-committee. Appellants do not say that the sub-committee, spoken of in the aforesaid Resolution No.12, did not make any enquiry nor did it make any recommendation in favour of the plaintiffs. It was only the appellants, who were in a position to say whether any enquiry was made by the said committee and, if so, whether any recommendation had been also made, or not. Their silence on this aspect of the matter is indicative of the fact that they are …6… hiding something material. It is clear from the written statement of the appellants that they do not deny the status of late Shri Sidhu as freedom fighter nor do they deny that his legal heirs are entitled to the restoration of the confiscated property. It is also not denied that the plaintiffs are the sole legal heirs of the deceased freedom fighter Shri Sidhu. Appellants’ own agency, i.e. field revenue staff, wrote to appellant No.3, i.e., the Collector, Mandi, that late Shri Sidhu’s 41 bighas 15 biswansis land had been confiscated and it was not possible to restore the said land to the plaintiffs, because of its having been allotted by the Government to different persons and that in lieu of the land plaintiffs could be compensated by payment of Rs.1,70,348/-, which amount was equivalent to the market value of the land, worked out on the basis of average price of land fixed by the Collector. On the basis of this report of the revenue field staff, the Deputy Commissioner wrote a letter, Ex. PB, to the other appellants that the legal heirs of late Shri Sidhu had not been paid any compensation for the land and that only a sum of Rs.3,000/-, by way of grant-in-aid, had been paid to them. He wrote to the Government to take appropriate decision regarding payment of compensation of the confiscated land of late Shri Sidhu to the legal heirs of said late Shri Sidhu. 10. In view of the abovestated position, it is held that both the Courts below have correctly appreciated the evidence, including the minutes of the meeting of the Freedom Fighters Welfare Council, held on 28th July, 1986, and consequently both …7… the substantial questions of law are answered against the appellants. Resultantly, the appeal is dismissed, with costs quantified at Rs.20,000/- September 29, 2008(sd) ( Surjit Singh ), J