C.W.P No. 141 of 1987 (O&M) ::1:: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P No. 141 of 1987 (O&M) Date of decision : July 14, 2010 Jaswinder Kaur, ...... Petitioner (s) v. The State of Punjab and others, ...... Respondent(s) *** CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI *** Present : Mr. G.S.Punia, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. S.S.Gill, DAG Punjab for the respondents. *** 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 ? *** AJAY TEWARI, J (Oral) Five Bighas and thirteen biswas of land situated in village Chapar Chiri, Tehsil Kharar, District Ropar was transferred to the petitioner under the Punjab Package Deal Properties (Disposal) Act, 1976 (for short “the Act”) in the year 1980 on the ground that she had been in continuous possession thereof since 1978. After the conveyance deed was executed, a complaint was made that the petitioner had been wrongly transferred the said land. The Chief Sales Commissioner held that the petitioner was not eligible to apply since, as per rule 3(2)(iii) of the Punjab Package Deal C.W.P No. 141 of 1987 (O&M) ::2:: (Properties) Rules, 1976 (for short “the Rules”), her husband was alive and was neither disabled nor incapacitated. The said order was confirmed in appeal. In this writ petition, the primary challenge is to the vires of the Rules on the ground that merely because the petitioner is a woman it cannot be stipulated that she would not be eligible for transfer of land if her husband is not disabled or incapacitated. Before going into the above argument, some uncontroverted facts which have been pleaded in the written statement also need to be noticed. It has been pleaded in the written statement that the petitioner already owns 6 acres 13 kanals and 7 marlas of land in village Chapar Cheri. It is also mentioned that even otherwise the allotment made to the petitioner could not be considered to be bona fide since as per khasra girdawari for Rabi 1978 (on the basis of which the petitioner had sought the transfer) crop had been sown in one bigha only, one bigha ten biswas was `Khali', while the remaining three bighas three biswas was mentioned as Banjar Kadim. It is further pleaded that under rule 3(6)(iii) of the Rules, in the case of a woman or a minor, the case had to be sent to the Chief Sales Commissioner with a specific recommendation for approval. However, in the present case, no such approral was sought. It has also been pleaded in the written statement that both the petitioner and her husband are government employees and further that the petitioner is not a tiller. No replication was filed to the averments made in the written statement. In the circumstances, this Court is convinced that the allotment made to the petitioner was unjustified. Needless to state that normally all public property should be disposed of by auction. However, special provision can be made for specific categories like land-less labourers, C.W.P No. 141 of 1987 (O&M) ::3:: Scheduled Castes or disadvantaged citizens. The petitioner cannot be described as one of such categories. Even otherwise, in a writ Court an inequitous petitioner cannot seek equity and it is not necessary to set aside each and every illegal thing. Reference in this regard can be made to a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported as Shiv Shankar Dal Mills v. State of Haryana, (1980)2 SCC 437, wherein it was held as follows :- “ Article 226 grants an extraordinary remedy which is essentially discretionary, although founded on legal injury. It is perfectly open for the court, exercising this flexible power, to pass such order as public interest dictates and equity projects : Courts of equity may, and frequently do, go much further both to give and withhold relief in furtherance of the public interest than they are accustomed to go where only private interests are involved. Accordingly, the granting or withholding of relief may properly be dependent upon considerations as of public interest.....” In view of the findings above, in my opinion it would not be necessary for this Court to opine on the constitutional validity of Rule 3(2) (iii) of the Rules and leave that for decision in appropriate proceedings. Consequently, this writ petition is dismissed with no order as to costs. As the main petition has since been dismissed, all the pending civil miscellaneous applications, if any, also stand disposed of. ( AJAY TEWARI ) July 14, 2010. JUDGE `kk' C.W.P No. 141 of 1987 (O&M) ::4::