IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.5477 of 2011 Date of Decision: March 28, 2011 K.L. Sehgal .....PETITIONER(S) VERSUS State of Punjab & another .....RESPONDENT(S) . . . CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA PRESENT: - Mr. S.C. Kalra, Advocate, with Mr. V.K. Mehra, Advocate, for the petitioner. . . . AJAI LAMBA, J (Oral) 1. In this petition, prayer made by petitioner, K.L. Sehgal son of Hans Raj, is for quashing Order dated 9.12.2010 (Annexure P-1) passed by Financial Commissioner, Revenue, Punjab. 2. Father of the petitioner namely Hans Raj was allotted two Government built tenements at Jaito (Punjab) by the Settlement Officer, Rehabilitation Department, Government of India, under Compulsory Allotment Scheme vide Letter dated 29.5.1961 (Annexure P-2). The allotment was made towards settlement of claim of immovable property left in Pakistan. 3. From the correspondence produced in Court, it CWP No.5477 of 2011 [2] appears that father of the petitioner pursued the case till 1966-67 for allotment of land and thereafter, no action was taken. Hans Raj passed away in the year 1977. Petitioner revived the case for getting possession of the land in the year 2007. 4. Vide impugned order (Annexure P-1), the Financial Commissioner, Revenue, Punjab, dismissed the claim of the petitioner on the ground that after allotment of tenements in the year 1961, Office of Assistant Settlement Officer, Jalandhar, asked the claimant that District Rent & Managing Officer should be contacted for delivery of possession of the plots in question in view of the fact that Settlement Officer did not deal with the issue. The claimant, however, did not approach any authority in the district for delivery of possession of plots. It has been recorded in the impugned order that no proof of such effort has been attached to the appeal/ claim. Under the circumstances, the case of the petitioner (son of the allottee) has been rejected on the ground that there has been delay of 49 years i.e. since 1961. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has tried to make out a case that the matter was pursued till 1967 and thereafter the delay is not as much, as depicted. 6. I have considered the contention(s) of the learned counsel. 7. Displaced Persons (Compensation & Rehabilitation) Act, 1954 was repealed in the year 2005. Father of the petitioner did not pursue the matter after 1966-67. Even the petitioner raked up the matter after un-explained delay in the year 2007. It has been recorded in Para 6 of the impugned order (Annexure P-1) that the allottee was required to CWP No.5477 of 2011 [3] contact the concerned office within a reasonable time to seek possession of the tenements. This Court does not consider the delay to be explained with any plausible reason. No illegality or perversity in the impugned order can be traced and the same does not call for judicial review. The allottee was required to be vigilant about his rights. The allottee and later his son, the petitioner however did not take any relevant steps to pursue the case for taking possession of tenements, in consequence of the allotment, admittedly for the last over 40 years. 8. The petition is dismissed. (AJAI LAMBA) March 28, 2011 JUDGE avin 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?