IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No.2100 of 1988 Date of decision : 24.8.2010 Ram Sarup and others … Petitioners Versus Union of India and others …Respondents Coram: Hon’ble Ms.Justice Ritu Bahri Present: Mr.G.S.Jaiswal, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.S.S.Goripuria, DAG, Haryana. 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Ritu Bahri, J. The petitioners, in this writ petition, have challenged the order dated 23.12.1987 (Annexure P-6) vide which the land allotted to the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioner i.e. Ganpat by the Rehabilitation Department in lieu of the land left by him in Pakistan, has been cancelled. The petitioners are the legal heirs of Ganpat. Ganpat had been allotted land comprised in khasra No.81/1 measuring 136 kanals, 3 marlas in lieu of the land left by him in Pakistan. The detail of the land as noticed in para 2 of the writ petition is as under “That the petitioners are the legal heirs and successors-in- interest of late Shri Ganpat son of Nathu who was a displaced person from West Pakistan and who abandoned land in Chak No.19/WB Tehsil Vihari, District Multan and in lieu thereof he was allotted after several years strenuous efforts land comprised in khasra No.81/1 area measuring 136 kanals, 3 marlas equal to 5 st.acres and 5 units in village Tamnoli, Had Bast No.65, Tehsil and District Ambala on 2.5.1985. He was awarded Pacca allotment Sanad i.e. permanent ownership rights on 29.8.1985 and this fact was implemented in the revenue record of the CWP No.2100 of 1988 village vide Rapt No.201 dated 15.7.1985 in the Jamabandi for the year 1983-84 as per red entry in the remarks column.” It is the case of the petitioners that the aforesaid land allotted to their father-Ganpat was part of evacuee area, which upon the migration of Muslim owners, vested in the custodian in accordance with the provisions of the East Punjab Evacuees (Administration of Property) Act, Act No.14 of 1947 and continued to be so. It is further the case of the petitioners that the Chief Settlement Commissioner i.e. respondent No.3 prompted unduly by the judgment of the Supreme Court in case of Union of India Vs. Bishan Singh (Civil Appeal No.1726 of 1974) had issued notices to the father of the petitioners and other land owners contemplating cancellation of the allotment on the ground that the land in question being shamlat area. Pursuant to the notices issued, the petitioners appeared before the Chief Settlement Commissioner and contested the legalities of the notices. It was pointed out that the land in question is a shamlat deh and is the ownership of the petitioners as the same stood allotted to the father of the petitioners in lieu of the land left by him in Pakistan. However, the Chief Settlement Commissioner-respondent vide order impugned in the present writ petition, cancelled the allotment made in favour of the petitioners in view of the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in case Gram Panchayat of Village Jamalpur Vs. Malwinder Singh and other, AIR 1985, S.C. 1394. To overcome the effect of the judgment of the Supreme Court in case Gram Panchayat of Village Jamalpur (supra), amendment was carried out by the State of Haryana by Act No.13, 1996 by introducing sub clause (ii- 2 CWP No.2100 of 1988 a) in clause (g) of Section 2 of the Act. The Legislature excluded from the definition of shamlat deh that shamlat land, which had been allotted to any person by the Rehabilitation Department of the State Govt. after the commencement of the Act, but on or before the 9th day of July, 1985 i.e. the date on which the Supreme Court, resolved the controversy in Gram Panchayat, Jamalpur’s case (supra). Effect of this amendment was that all the allotments made prior to the year 09.7.1985 were saved, and that the allotments made by the Rehabilitation Department before the appointed date, were not liable to be cancelled. In view of the above amendment, the Division Bench of this Court in the judgment of Veer Kaur Vs. The State of Haryana and others, (CWP No.7609 of 1988 decided on 23.5.2000), quashed the impugned order cancelling the allotment made to the allottees by the Rehabilitation Department and a direction was given to restore the possession of the land in dispute, to the petitioners forthwith. Recently, the Division Bench of this Court in case of Gram Panchayat of village Kum-Kalan Vs. The State of Punjab and others (CWP No. 4816 of 1996 decided on 7.4.2010) has upheld the notification and validity of Haryana Act 13 of 1996, whereby the amendment was made by the State of Haryana to overcome the validity by Hon’ble Supreme Court in case Gram Panchayat of Village Jamalpur Vs. Malwinder Singh and other, AIR 1985, S.C. 1394 Once, the validity of the Act 13, 1996 was upheld by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Gram Panchayat of village Kum- 3 CWP No.2100 of 1988 Kalan (supra), nothing survives in the present petition. Accordingly the writ petition succeeds. Consequently, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned order Annexure P-6 is quashed, and it is held that the allotments made by the Rehabilitation Department before the appointed date i.e. 09.7.1985 is perfectly valid. (Ritu Bahri) Judge 24.08.2010 sd 4