CWP No.6058 of 1987 (O&M) [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No.6058 of 1987 (O&M) Date of Decision:20.12.2011 Ch. Hari Chand son of Ch. Ditta Ram, House No.EP-31, Sohna, District Gurgaon. ... Petitioner Versus Financial Commissioner, Revenue and Secretary to Government, Haryana, Rehabilitation Department, Chandigarh and others. ... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN Present:Mr. Som Nath Saini, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. O.P. Sharma, Addl. AG, Haryana, for respondents No.1 and 2. None for respondents No.3 to 9. ***** 1.Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? NO 2.To be referred to the reporters or not? NO 3.Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest? NO K. KANNAN, J. (Oral) 1. The petitioner challenges the orders of the authorities constituted under the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954 (in short, 'the Act, 1954') seeking to annul the orders making the allotment and conferring the proprietary rights in respect of certain lands on 05.09.1949 and 07.11.1955 as having been wrongly made. The proceedings for cancellation were undertaken nearly 20 years later on the ground that the property, which the petitioner had left behind in CWP No.6058 of 1987 (O&M) [2] the place now in Pakistan, had been in possession of occupancy tenants and in the manner of reckoning the valuation of the property allotable to the petitioner had not been properly done and that the petitioner had been allotted in an extent larger than what he was entitled to. 2. In the manner of adjudging petitioner's entitlement under the Act of 1954, the assumption was that he should be allotted an extent corresponding to 10 annas value of the landlord's share in the extent of the property. The impugned order came to be passed on a finding that the petitioner must have been allotted an extent of property corresponding to 8 annas valuation of the landlord's share. 3. The learned counsel points out that the occupancy tenant's and landlord's rights were to be valued in the manner set-forth in the scheme that was established under the Act of 1954, which laid down, inter alia, that for cases where the rent was more than 1/3rd of the gross produce after deducting incidental charges, the tenant's valuation and the landlord's valuation must be apportioned as 5 and 11 annas. In support of the contention that it had been let out for more than 1/3rd of the gross produce as batai, the petitioner has relied on the jamabandi for the village Lalpur/379, Tehsil Muzafargarh now in Pakistan that the batai for the property held by the petitioner was a half share as per the khatauni No.4. Evidently, the landlord's share as per the manual brought under the scheme must have provided for an allotment taking the landlord's entitlement as 11 annas. The claim by the petitioner is that the allotment conforms only to such a method of reckoning and the modifications sought to be done through the impugned order was, therefore, unjustified. The records brought by the petitioner were surely weighty enough that afforded a scope for the Government to correct their own mistake of assumption but CWP No.6058 of 1987 (O&M) [3] curiously the order passed merely rejects the petitioner's contention with a wild observation that the petitioner had not established through any documentary evidence the contention that he was making. I find the observations to be clearly off the mark and set aside the order. There is yet another reason, as to why, this order cannot be sustained. An action that was taken towards displaced person favouring an allotment on 05.09.1949 and conferring him the proprietary rights on 07.11.1955, cannot be re-opened at the whims of State two decades later. There was no justification for such an exercise. This Court has examined the effect of such unexplained delay in the decision in "Suba Ram and others v. The State of Haryana" in CWP No.4949 of 1987 dated 16.11.2011 to hold that such unexplained delay would prevent the State from exercising any right of resumption or modification under the Act, 1954. 4. The impugned orders Annexure P-2 and P-4 are set aside and the writ petition is allowed. DECEMBER 20, 2011 ( K. KANNAN ) Rajan JUDGE