C.W.P No. 2527 of 1987 (O&M) ::1:: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P No. 2527 of 1987 (O&M) Date of decision : September 13, 2010 Makkar (dead) through L.Rs ...... Petitioner, v. State of Haryana and others, ...... Respondents *** CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI *** Present : Mr. R.M.Singh, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. A.K.Gupta, Addl.A.G Haryana for the respondents. *** 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) This writ petition has been filed against the order, Annexure P- 4, whereby transfer of 52 kanals 8 marla of land made in favour of the petitioner was set aside, as also the order, Annexure P-5, whereby the revision filed by the petitioner against the order (Annexure P-4) was rejected on the ground of maintainability. The admitted facts are that in 1963, 98 kanals 16 marla `inferior evacuee land' was leased out to the petitioner. The said land was disposed of, in terms of letter No.7841-JE(IV)-61/2699, dated 29.8.1961 as amended C.W.P No. 2527 of 1987 (O&M) ::2:: with Punjab Government letter No.7171-JE(IV)/64/395, dated 23.1.1964. The relevant clauses of the said letter are (c) and (e) which read as follows:- “(c) After a period of five years the lessee shall have the option to purchase the land at the rate of Rs.40/- per acre of Banjar land and Rs.25/- per acre of Gair Mumkin land. The lease money recovered from him shall be deducted from the sale price and the net amount due shall be payable in lump-sum or in four equal annual instalment. (e) The lessee shall bring under cultivation or proper use 1/4th of the land in the first three years of the lease and the remaining 3/4th in the next two years.” The petitioner brought the land under cultivation and ultimately by a conveyance deed dated 22.7.1974, the land was conveyed in his favour. In the year 1982, the impugned order was passed cancelling the transfer of 52 kanals 8 marla of land on the ground that as per clause (e) (supra), the petitioner had not brought the entire land under cultivation as envisaged therein. While challenging the impugned orders, counsel for the petitioner has relied upon a decision of this Court in CWP No.1049 of 1983, Sardara vs State of Haryana and others, decided on 4.6.1993, which also related to a similar allottee of `inferior evacuee land' of the same village viz Kheri Gulam Ali under the same letter, Annexure P-1. In the said case also, the land was subsequently transferred by way of a conveyance deed and later the transfer of some land was cancelled on the same ground that the petitioner therein had not brought the entire land under cultivation within C.W.P No. 2527 of 1987 (O&M) ::3:: five years as envisaged in clause (c) (supra). In the aforesaid judgment, this Court held as follows :- “.......... These functionaries must understand that they have got no right to set aside the binding contract made between the Governor of Haryana and a citizen. A contract validly arrived at between the Governor of Haryana and a citizen can only be cancelled if provision in that behalf has been made in a statute or the contract can be avoided under the provisions of the Contract Act. A contract can be challenged before a competent authority provided under the statute or in the civil Court. The officers exercising executive functions cannot assume jurisdiction not vested in them for cancelling the binding contracts arrived at between the Governor of Haryana and a citizen.” Counsel for the respondents, while not disputing the applicability of the aforesaid judgment, has relied upon a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Om Parkash and others vs. Union of India and others, AIR 1971 Supreme Court 771, wherein it was held as follows :- “....... This contention in our view has no validity. It is a well-established proposition of law that where a specific power is conferred without prejudice to the generality of the general powers already specified, the particular power is only illustrative and does not in any way restrict the general power.....” In my opinion, no benefit can be derived by counsel for the C.W.P No. 2527 of 1987 (O&M) ::4:: respondents from the above judgment. Had the conveyance deed not been executed in favour of the petitioner, it may have been said that the lease could have been cancelled. However, as noticed by this Court in the judgment in Sardar's case (supra), relations between the parties changed fundamentally after the execution of the conveyance deed. Once the petitioner had become the owner, the contract could have been avoided only on the limited grounds envisaged under the Contract Act. The fact that the petitioner allegedly did not meet an antecedent condition could not have authorized the State to cancel the sale (albeit partly) after 10 years. Consequently, being in respectful agreement with the decision of this Court in Sardar's case (supra), this writ petition is allowed and the impugned orders are set aside. No costs. As the main petition has since been allowed, all the pending civil miscellaneous applications, if any, also stand disposed of. ( AJAY TEWARI ) September 13, 2010. JUDGE `kk'