C.W.P.No.478 of 2010 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.478 of 2010 Date of Decision:- 1.12.2011 Jagir Kaur wd/o Pritam Singh ....Petitioner Versus The State of Punjab ...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 the respondent. M ehinder S ingh S ullar , J. (Oral) The conspectus of the facts, culminating in the commencement, relevant for the limited purpose of deciding the sole controversy, involved in the instant writ petition and emanating from the record, is that Pritam Singh, husband of petitioner Jagir Kaur was army personnel. During the course of Indo-Pak War of 1965, he made his supreme sacrifice of his life for the defence of his Motherland. His supreme sacrifice was recognized by the Chief of the Army Staff, by means of certificate dated 16.12.1999 (Annexure P1/T). This fact is also incorporated in his service record certificate (Annexure P2). 2. Petitioner Jagir Kaur, unfortunate widow of Pritam Singh, approached the army authorities for 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 relevant rules”). The Commanding Officer recommended her case to Financial Commissioner (Revenue) for the allotment of the land, by way of letter dated 7.11.2005 (Annexure P3). Still, the respondent did not allot the land to the petitioner, despite legal notice dated 20.6.2009 (Annexure P4). 3. Aggrieved by the action of the Government, petitioner preferred the C.W.P.No.478 of 2010 -2- present writ in the nature of mandamus, directing it to allot 10 ordinary acres of land to her under Rule 4 of the relevant rules, invoking the provisions of Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India. 4. The respondent refuted the claim of petitioner and filed the written statement, inter-alia pleading that she has no locus standi to file the writ petition as she has not applied, in lieu of press note dated 28.11.1975 (Annexure R1). According to the respondent that since no application was received from the petitioner in response to the indicated press note, so, she is not entitled for allotment of land in this respect. However, the remaining factual matrix was acknowledged by the respondent. 5. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, going through the record with their valuable help and after deep consideration over the entire matter, to my mind, the instant writ petition deserves to be partly accepted in this context. 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 contemplated under Rule 4 of the relevant rules. The fact that the husband of the petitioner had made supreme sacrifice of his life for the country during the Indo- Pak War of 1965, is duly established from the certificates (Ex.P1/T) issued by the Chief of the Army Staff and service record (Annexure P2). It is not a matter of dispute that the case of the petitioner for allotment of land to her was duly recommended by the concerned Commanding Officer, vide letter (Annexure P3). 7. Above being the position on record, now the core question that arises for determination in this case is as to whether the Government (respondent) is duty bound to consider the case of petitioner on merits or not? 8. Having regard to the rival contentions of learned counsel for the C.W.P.No.478 of 2010 -3- 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, through the medium of order dated 20.11.2008 (Annexure P5) 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 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 C.W.P.No.478 of 2010 -4- 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 P5). 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 her, 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 her within a further period of two months. The Registry is directed to send a copy of this order to the respondent forthwith for its strict compliance. (Mehinder Singh Sullar) 1.12.2011 Judge AS Whether to be referred to reporter ? Yes/No