CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.15550 OF 2007 :{ 1 }: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH DATE OF DECISION: MAY 04, 2009 Gurdev Kaur .....Petitioner VERSUS State of Punjab and others ....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? PRESENT: Mr. J. S. Brar, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Parveen Chander Goyal, Addl.A.G., Punjab, for the State. **** RANJIT SINGH, J. A war widow seems to be a victim of bureaucratic indifference in this case. 80 kanals of evacuee land allotted to her on 26.2.1988 on consideration is sought to be taken away from her on the ground that area has now been declared a protected forest as per notification issued by the Government of Punjab on 24.4.2006. This land, which was allotted to the war widow, was mutated on her name on 13.5.1992 and her ownership is duly incorporated and reflected in the jamabandies. The transfer of the CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.15550 OF 2007 :{ 2 }: land was through a registered conveyance deed and ever since the date of this allotment, the petitioner war widow is in possession of the land and is cultivating the same. Copies of the conveyance deed as well as the jamabandies for the years 2001-02 are annexed with the records of this writ petition. Even khasra girdawari for the crops Sauni 2005 to Harri 2007 are placed on record. Punjab Government has issued a notification, declaring 406 acres of land in Village Zindanpur to be protected forest. 80 kanals land allotted to the petitioner forms part of this 406 acres so notified. The petitioner, thus, fears her dispossession that has to follow. A mistake by Patwari seems to be the cause of this trouble for the petitioner. Patwari made a wrong entry of mutation No.43 on 12.10.1979 in Parat Sarkar of Mutation register transferring the ownership of this land in favour of Forest Department. This mutation was not sanctioned by any revenue authority. This entry, thus, is wrong, which would not confer any right on Forest Department. Otherwise also, mutation would not confer any right of ownership on the forest department. Perusal of the petition would show that 26570 acres of Banjar Qadeem and Gairmumkin land in the whole State of Punjab was transferred to the Forest Department by the Rehabilitation Department in the year 1971. Out of this area of 3282 acres was in District Ropar. Later, on 22.8.1973, the Government of Punjab took a decision to transfer 2350 acres of land in District Ropar, which was given to Forest Department back to the Rehabilitation Department. Punjab Government also decided to redistribute the same to the CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.15550 OF 2007 :{ 3 }: eligible members of the scheduled caste by declaring it to be surplus evacuee land. Thus, even the land, which was declared Forest land in Village Zindanpur was also available for allotment to scheduled caste as surplus evacuee land. Reference in this regard is made to a communication No.2(385)/G-5/18603 dated 4.10.1973, Annexure P- 5, from Deputy Secretary, Rehabilitation Department, Jalandhar to the Chief Conservator of Forests, Punjab. It is pleaded by the petitioner that possession of this 80 kanals of land sold to her always remained with her and was not handed over by the Rehabilitation Department to the Forest Department. This land, thus, is not under intensive forestation. Even the entire land measuring 486 acres of village Zidanpur was not brought under intensive forestation by the Forest Department. It is clearly mentioned in Annexure P-5 that the land which has not been brought under intensive forestation shall be taken back and these lands can be cultivated by Harijan and Rai Sikhs in event of transfer on sale to them. Fearing that the petitioner would be dispossessed of this land, she filed the present writ petition pleading that this action of the Government in declaring this land to be protected forest, can not be sustained as that would lead to taking away the private land of the petitioner allotted to her on consideration. The petitioner accordingly pleads that there is no justification to include the land allotted to her to be a part of protected forest, when otherwise there is a move to give the land notified as protected forest back to the Rehabilitation Department and to allot the same to scheduled caste and Rai Sikhs. While issuing notice of motion, this Court stayed the CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.15550 OF 2007 :{ 4 }: operation of notification qua the land of the petitioner. The reply on behalf of the State is filed. The facts that the petitioner was allotted this land and that the registered conveyance deed was sanctioned in her favour is conceded. The entries in the jamabandies relied upon by the petitioner are also not disputed. It is also conceded that there has never been any challenge to the conveyance deed registered in favour of the petitioner. Considering the factual position emerging from the pleadings, the legality of the notification need not be examined. The State has not given any justification for putting the land in the notification, which is in the ownership of the petitioner. It is not pleaded that the land in dispute is under intensive forestation. The decision taken by the Punjab Government dated 22.8.1973 would come to the rescue of the petitioner. Government has decided to take part of the land back from the Forest Department, where there is no intensive forestation. This is being done so that this land can be allotted to scheduled caste and Rai Sikhs. The decision of Government of Punjab being to allot this land should equally apply to the case of the petitioner, who had been allotted this land much prior to even the date of notification to transfer this land to Forest Department. Any other approach would lead to discrimination and, thus, would be bad on that count. A case of war widow can not be placed on any less pedestal than the scheduled caste or Rai Sikh. Petitioner got this land in recognition of the sacrifice made by her husband for Nation. She would, thus, deserve better treatment than any other citizens, who are eligible for allotment of such type of land. The jamabandi is CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.15550 OF 2007 :{ 5 }: sufficient proof that the land is under cultivation and not under forestation. Such land, even as per the Government decision, is to be withdrawn from the Forest Department and is to be made available for allotment to eligible persons. There can not be a better eligible person than the war widow. This evacuee land was allotted to her on payment being a war widow. Is she now to be divested of this rightful and due allotment? Are we now to forget the sacrifice made by her husband? She must have barely settled herself after the catastrophic loss she suffered. She can not be asked to undergo another avoidable sufferance. Law and equity both would seem to be combining here to protect the petitioner from the wrath of this notification. This notification has already been tempered and diluted by the State Government. This concession can not be denied to the petitioner and rather deserve to be extended to her with full vigor. The State has not pleaded in any manner that the approach as canvassed would not be permissive. Not adopting the same may lead to discrimination and arbitrary consequences. It will be totally unfair to dispossess the petitioner of this land at this stage, when Government itself is allotting substantial portion of the land, earlier declared protected, to scheduled castes and Rai Sikhs. It may lead to violation of her right to life and livelihood as guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution. Thus, a strong case is made out for excluding this land allotted to the petitioner as a war widow from the purview of notification in view of the instructions issued by Government on 22.8.1973. It is so ordered. A writ, therefore, is issued directing the State to exclude the land allotted to the petitioner from the notification issued CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.15550 OF 2007 :{ 6 }: declaring the same to be protected forest as it is not under intensive forestation. The order allotting the land to the petitioner would stand validly in her name. The necessary consequences arising out of the allotment in favour of the petitioner shall follow. The petitioner shall not be dispossessed from the land in dispute. This order would not be taken as an expression of opinion on the validity of the notification otherwise than in the afore-mentioned background of this case. The writ petition is allowed in the above terms. May 04, 2009 ( RANJIT SINGH ) khurmi JUDGE