IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. (1) C.W.P. No.1168 of 1988 Shri Kartar Singh and others. ....... Petitioners through Shri C.L.Ghai and Shri Dinesh Ghai, Advocates. Versus The State of Haryana and others. ....... Respondent nos. 1 & 2 through Shri Kulvir Narwal, Addl.Advocate General, Haryana. None for respondent no.3. (2) C.W.P. No.2116 of 1988 Dalbir Kaur. ....... Petitioner through Shri Atul Lakhanpal, Senior Advocate with Shri V.P.S.Mithewal, Advocate. Versus The Union of India and others. ....... Respondent nos. 2 & 3 through Shri Kulvir Narwal, Addl.Advocate General, Haryana. Respondent no.4 through Shri B.S.Bhinder, Advocate. None for respondent no.1. (3) C.W.P. No.2117 of 1988 Dalbir Kaur. ....... Petitioner through Shri Atul Lakhanpal, Senior Advocate with Shri V.P.S.Mithewal, Advocate. C.W.P.No.1168 of 1988 -2- .... Versus The Union of India and others. ....... Respondent nos. 2 & 3 through Shri Kulvir Narwal, Addl.Advocate General, Haryana. Respondent no.4 through Shri B.S.Bhinder, Advocate. None for respondent no.1. (4) C.W.P. No.3089 of 1988 Dhara Singh. ....... Petitioner through Shri C.L.Ghai and Shri Dinesh Ghai, Advocates. Versus The Union of India and others. ...... Respondent nos. 2,3 and 5 through Shri Kulvir Narwal, Addl.Advocate General, Haryana. None for respondent no.1 & 4. Date of Decision: 20.8.2010 CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER .... 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? .... C.W.P.No.1168 of 1988 -3- .... Mahesh Grover,J. This judgment will dispose of the above mentioned four writ petitions as common questions of law and facts are involved therein. The controversy herein relates to the evacuee property which was allotted to different persons and the petitioners came to be in possession thereof either by its allotment to them or by purchase from the original allottees. Later on, such allotments were sought to be cancelled by the State Government on the ground that the evacuee property formed part of shamlat deh lands of the villages and could not be allotted and hence, the instant petitions were instituted by the petitioners. Prior to the filing of these petitions, an issue relating to the right of the Gram Panchayats to the shamlat deh lands situated in those villages which fell within their jurisdiction and on the other hand, the right of the Rehabilitation Department of the Central Government to allot lands of that description, to the extent of the evacuee interest therein, to persons who migrated from Pakistan to India after the partition of the country was raised before this Court in several writ petitions and ultimately, the matter went before the Supreme Court and their Lordships in the case reported as Gram Panchayat of Village Jamalpur Versus Malwinder Singh and others, 1985 P.L.J. 463, held that the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act,1953 ( for short, `Act of 1953') would prevail in the State of Punjab over the Administration of Evacuee Property Act, 1950 ( a Central Act) in so far as shamlat deh lands are concerned. In the meantime, the Central Government had also enacted the C.W.P.No.1168 of 1988 -4- .... Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act,1954 for allotment and administration of evacuee properties in the country. The Act of 1953 was replaced by the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act,1961 (`Act of 1961') which was also made applicable by the State of Haryana on its formation in the year 1966. Both the States of Punjab and Haryana amended the definition of `shamlat deh land' as contained in the Act of 1961. That amendment was challenged in several writ petitions and a Division Bench of this Court upheld the said amendment by its judgment dated 7.4.2010 passed in C.W.P.No.4816 of 1996- Gram Panchayat of village Kum Kalan Versus The State of Punjab and others, which had the effect of protecting the rights of the allottees of shamlat deh lands as evacuee property by the Rehabilitation Department before 9.7.1985, i.e., the date of judgment of the Supreme Court in Gram Panchayat of Village Jamalpur Versus Malwinder Singh and others (supra). It was further held that the amendment which was made in the year 1996 to be effective from the year 1985,would validate all the proceedings with effect from 9.7.1985. Shri Kulvir Narwal, learned Additional Advocate General, Haryana has very fairly conceded that the amendment of 1996 made in the Act of 1961 supports the case of the petitioners herein and the allotments either in their favour or in favour of their predecessors are covered by aforesaid judgment of the Division Bench. In this view of the matter, when the controversy in hand has sufficiently been answered by the Division Bench in C.W.P.No.4816 of C.W.P.No.1168 of 1988 -5- .... 1996, these writ petitions are accepted. As a result, the orders cancelling the allotment of evacuee property shall stand quashed and where there is no such order, the allotment of such property is upheld. August 20,2010 ( Mahesh Grover ) “SCM” Judge