IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.M. No. 90 of 2010 in/and Letters Patent Appeal No. 34 of 2010 Date of Decision : July 20, 2010. Lachmi Devi and others ...... Appellants Versus. State of Punjab and others ..... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH. Present:- Mr. Ashok Singla, Advocate, for the appellants. JASBIR SINGH, J. (ORAL). C.M. No. 90 of 2010. For the reasons mentioned in the application, delay of 58 days in re-filing the Letters Patent Appeal, is hereby condoned. Application stands disposed of. Letters Patent Appeal No. 34 of 2010. Appellants are successor-in-interest of one Harnam Singh to whom the land measuring 101 kanals 5 marlas was allotted way back in the year 1965. This case has a chequered history. The matter went before various revenue authorities. Out of the abovesaid land, mother of respondent No. 5 was in possession of 12 kanals 5 marlas of land. At one time above portion of the land was allotted to the respondents. However, subsequent thereto on a challenge made by Harnam Singh abovementioned, allotment was cancelled. Parties continued to litigate against each other and after exhausting their remedies before the Revenue Courts, they filed CWP No. 13727 of 2007 Letters Patent Appeal No. 34 of 2010. -2- (Lachmi Devi and others Versus State of Punjab and others) and CWP No. 12537 of 2007 (Premjit etc. Versus Financial Commissioner). Both these writ petitions were disposed of by the learned Single Judge, vide Order dated 30.03.2009 by observing as under :- “During the pendency of these writ petitions, the parties appear to have reached a compromise. The petitioners, who were the applicants seeking cancellation of allotment in favour of the respondents, now say that they are satisfied as allotment of the land measuring 12 kanals 5 marls in their favour be protected. Counsel says that the petitioners are withdrawing the application, which they had filed, seeking cancellation of allotment of land in favour of Harnam Singh. It is noticed that Harnam Singh was entitled to allotment of this land not only in his capacity as an ex-serviceman but also being a Rai Sikh. There is not much dispute that Harnam Singh was a Rai Sikh. Accordingly, there is no requirement of ascertaining this fact by remanding the case back to the Deputy Commissioner. Accordingly, this part of the order passed by the Financial Commissioner is set aside keeping both the allotments in tact in view of the position noticed above.” A perusal of the Order indicates that the Order was passed on consent given by both the parties. The allotment made in their favour was kept intact. Rather, benefit was given to the appellants by setting aside an observation made by the Financial Commissioner below that antecedents of their predecessor-in-interest, namely, Harnam Singh, were required to be ascertained as to whether he was a Rai Sikh and also an ex-serviceman or not ? Letters Patent Appeal No. 34 of 2010. -3- Counsel for the appellants has failed to show any legal infirmity in the Order passed. Dismissed. (JASBIR SINGH) JUDGE (AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH) JUDGE July 20, 2010. sjks.