C.W.P.No.387 of 2010 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.387 of 2010 Date of Decision:- 1.12.2011 Ex.Sepoy Kulwant Singh ....Petitioner Versus The State of Punjab & Ors. ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR Present:- Mr.R.D.Bawa, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.R.P.S.Sidhu, AAG Punjab for respondent No.1. Mr.K.S.Dadwal, Advocate for respondent No.3. M ehinder S ingh S ullar , J. (Oral) The compendium of the facts, which needs a necessary mention for the limited purpose of deciding the core controversy, involved in the instant writ petition and emanating from the record, is that petitioner Kulwant Singh, while serving in the army, fought war against the Pakistan Army, during the course of Indo-Pak Conflict of 1971 and suffered a battle casualty in the nature of a shell injury, culminating into the amputation of his right foot. Consequently, he was declared permanently disabled and his disability was assessed 60%, by way of disability certificate dated 1.9.1972 (Annexure P1) issued by the Commandant. The petitioner was claimed to have been awarded the Sangram Medal, Pachhmi Star, Wounded Medal, 25th Independence Anniversary Medal and Sainya Seva Medal. 2. According to the petitioner, he approached the army authorities for the allotment of land measuring 10 acres, in pursuance of Rule 4 of the Punjab Package Deal Properties (Disposal) Rules, 1976 (hereinafter to be referred as “the C.W.P.No.387 of 2010 -2- relevant rules”). The Commanding Officer recommended his case to Financial Commissioner (Revenue) for allotment of the land, by means of letter dated 27.12.2005 (Annexure P2). Still, the respondents did not allot the land to the petitioner, despite his request dated 1.11.2006 (Annexure P2/A) and legal notice dated 20.6.2009 (Annexure P3). 3. Dissatisfied with the action of the Government, the petitioner preferred the present writ in the nature of mandamus, directing it to allot 10 ordinary acres of land to him under Rule 4 of the relevant rules, invoking the provisions of Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India. 4. The respondents contested the claim of petitioner and filed the written statement, inter-alia pleading that he has no locus standi to file the writ petition as he has not applied, in lieu of press note dated 28.11.1975 (Annexure P6). According to the respondents that since the petitioner remained in service till 1976, so, his request was rejected in this respect. However, the other factual matrix was acknowledged by the respondents. 5. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, having gone through the record with their valuable assistance and after bestowal of thoughts over the entire matter, to my mind, the instant writ petition deserves to be partly accepted in this regard. 6. What cannot possibly be disputed here is that permanently disabled soldiers, widow or parents or children of the soldiers killed in the Chinese Aggression of 1962 and Pakistan aggression of 1965 and widow of the personnel of the Armed Forces, Border Security Force and Punjab Armed Police killed in the Indo-Pakistan Conflict in 1971, shall be entitled to the allotment of land, as envisaged under Rule 4 of the relevant rules. The fact that the petitioner while serving in the army, fought war against the Pakistan Army, during the course of Indo-Pak Conflict of 1971 and suffered a battle casualty in the nature of a shell injury, culminating into the amputation of his right foot, is duly established from C.W.P.No.387 of 2010 -3- the certificate (Ex.P1) issued by the Commandant. It is not a matter of dispute that the case of the petitioner for allotment of land to him was duly recommended by the concerned Commanding Officer, vide letter (Annexure P2). 7. Such thus being the position on record, now the sole controversy that arises for consideration in this case is as to whether the Government (respondents) are duty bound to consider the case of petitioner on merits or not? 8. Having regard to the rival contentions of learned counsel for the parties, to me, the answer must obviously be in the affirmative. This matter is no more res integra. 9. An identical question came to the decided by a Division Bench of this Court, by virtue of order dated 20.11.2008 (Annexure P4) in CWP No.8962 of 2007 titled as “Smt.Jaswant Kaur Vs. The State of Punjab & Ors.” Having considered the respective stands of the parties as in the present case, it was ruled as under:- “Through the instant writ petition, the petitioner claims allotment of land in terms of Rule 4 of the Punjab Package Deal Properties (Disposal) Rules, 1976. This claim of the petitioner has been vehemently opposed by the learned counsel for the respondents by asserting that the petitioner has never moved an application under the statutory Rules reflected hereinabove, nor any policy instructions issued by the State Government from time to time. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner be afforded one opportunity to move a proper application in terms of the mandate of Rule 4 of the Punjab Package Deal Properties (Disposal), 1976 and that the respondents be directed to take a final decision thereon in terms of the mandate of the aforesaid Rules. Learned counsel for the respondents states, that if and when such an application is made by the petitioner, a decision thereon shall be taken by the respondents in accordance with law. Having considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the rival parties, we consider it just and appropriate to dispose of the instant writ petition, with liberty to the petitioner to move an application in terms of the mandate of Rule 4 of the Punjab Package Deal Properties (Disposal) Rules, 1976, within one month from today. In case, such an application is C.W.P.No.387 of 2010 -4- made by the petitioner within the time stipulated hereinabove along with a certified copy of the instant order, the same shall be considered by the competent authority by passing a well-reasoned speaking order, within two months. In case, a decision favourable to the petitioner is taken, the petitioner shall be allotted land within a further period of two months. Disposed of accordingly. Order dasti on payment of usual charges. Sd/- J.S.Khehar Judge 20.11.2008 Sd/- Nirmaljit Kaur Judge” 10. Faced with the situation, the learned counsel for the parties are ad idem that this case is squarely covered and is liable to be decided in the same terms of aforesaid judgment dated 20.11.2008 (Annexure P4). 11. In the light of aforesaid reasons, the instant writ petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to move an application in terms of Rule 4 of the relevant rules within a period of two months from today. In case, such application is made by him, the same shall be sympathetically considered by the competent authority, without adhering to the technical objection of non-filing of the application and by passing a well-reasoned speaking order, within a period of two months thereafter. If a favourable decision to the petitioner is taken by the competent authority, then the allotment of land shall be made to him within a further period of two months. The Registry is directed to send a copy of this order to the respondents forthwith for its strict compliance. (Mehinder Singh Sullar) 1.12.2011 Judge AS Whether to be referred to reporter ? Yes/No