IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH LPA No.1360 of 2011(O&M) Date of decision: 08.08.2011 K.L.Sehgal …..Appellant versus State of Punjab and others ……Respondents CORAM: Hon’ble Mr.Justice Jasbir Singh Hon’ble Mr.Justice Augustine George Masih Present: Mr.V.K.sachdeva, Advocate for the appellant Jasbir Singh, J. (Oral) This appeal has been filed against judgment dated 28.3.2011, passed by the learned Single Judge, dismissing CWP No.5477 of 2011, filed by the appellant. In the above writ petition, the appellant has laid challenge to an order dated 9.12.2010, passed by the Financial Commissioner, Revenue, Punjab, dismissing revision petition filed by the appellant, to claim proprietary rights with regard to two properties, which alleged to have been allotted to his father in the year 1961. The Financial Commissioner dismissed that revision petition by observing as under:- “5. I have considered the arguments of both the parties and documents placed on the file. It is apparent that the petitioner did not approach any authority for delivery of the possession of the tenements after the year 1967. The Claims Commissioner was competent to entertain such claim or petitions regarding which matter was pending before any authority empowered under the DPCR Act, 1954 at the time of repeal of this Act in the year 2005 by an Act of Parliament. The appellant’s father was allotted tenements and he had died LPA No.1360 of 2011(O&M) in the year 1977 as per death certificate attached with the grounds of appeal. It is strange that Sh.Hans Raj allottee did not make efforts during his life time to get the possession of the plot allotted in the year 1961. Even thereafter his son the present appellant has failed to produce any material to have approached the competent authority for delivery of the possession of the tenements. 6. The Settlement Officer, Govt. of India in their letter dated 29.5.61 has specifically mentioned in the allotment letter that if the allottee did not contact that office within the specified period the claim would be deemed to have been satisfied as per DPCR Rules, 1955. The appellant has not attached any correspondence to show that he or his father had contacted the Settlement Commissioner, Govt. of India intimating him that his claim had not been satisfied. As such the claim of the appellant is not maintainable at this stage.” It is specifically stated that after allotment of land in the year 1961, the matter was again taken up in the year 1967. Thereafter, neither father of the appellant nor the appellant ever contacted the authorities for delivery of possession. In the allotment letter dated 29.5.1961, it was specifically mentioned by the authorities that if allottee failed to contact the office within a specified period, his claim shall be deemed to have been satisfied as per Rules. Father of the appellant / allottee died in the year 1977. Before that date he did not make any attempt to get possession of the property, in dispute and thereafter, the appellant continue to sleep and woke up only in the year 2007 when application was moved to get possession of the property, in dispute. Virtually, a period of one generation has gone. It 2 LPA No.1360 of 2011(O&M) is not possible for us at this stage to say whether the property which was allotted to the appellant is still intact or not, it might have been used for any other purpose. The learned Single Judge, taking note of the above said facts, has rightly disentitled the appellant by giving the following reasons:- “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 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.” Neither before the learned Single Judge nor before us, any plausible explanation has been given by the appellant, as to why action was not taken in time. No case is made out for interference. No case is made to condone delay as well. Dismissed. (Jasbir Singh) Judge 08.08.2011 (Augustine George Masih) gk Judge 3 LPA No.1360 of 2011(O&M) 4