CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.12537 OF 2007 :{ 1 }: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH DATE OF DECISION: MARCH 30, 2009 Premjit and another .....Petitioners VERSUS Financnial Commissioner (Revenue), Punjab, Chandigarh 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. C. M. Munjal, Advocate, for the petitioners. (in CWP No.12537 of 2007) for respondent Nos.5 & 6 (in CWP No.13727 of 2007) Mr. Parveen Chander Goyal, Addl.A.G., Punjab, for the State. Mr. R. L. Batta, Sr.Advocate with Ms. Geeta Sharma, Advocate, for respondent Nos.4 to 9. (in CWP No.12537 of 2007) for the petitioners (in CWP No.13727 of 2007) **** RANJIT SINGH, J. (ORAL) This order will dispose of Civil Writ Petition Nos.12537 of 2007 (Premjit and another Vs. Financial Commissioner (Revenue), Punjab, Chandigarh and others) and 13727 of 2007 CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.12537 OF 2007 :{ 2 }: (Lachmi Devi and others Vs. State of Punjab and others ). The facts are being taken from Civil Writ Petition No.12537 of 2007. Harnam Singh, predecessor-in-interest of respondent Nos.4 to 9, sought allotment of land measuring 101 kanals 5 marlas on the ground that he is an ex-serviceman. The land was situated in village Chak Manewala, Tehsil Jallalabad. This land was allotted to Harnam Singh on 20.3.1965. The petitioners claim that out of this land, land measuring 12 kanals 5 marlas was in possession of Smt.Shanti Devi, mother of the petitioners. She had also filed an application before Tehsildar, Sales, Fazilka, under the Punjab Package Deal Property Act for allotment of this 12 kanals 5 marlas land being in her possession. On this application, report was sought. Revenue Officer reported that the petitioner had paid rent upto 1988- 89 and for the year 1989-90, demand had not been prepared. The land was also found to be in possession of Smt.Shanti Devi, as per the report sought and received. On 5.9.1980, Harnam Singh, who was allotted this land, had filed an application to leave 12 kanals 5 marlas land, which was in possession of mother of the petitioners. On the other hand, on 25.6.2002, the petitioners filed an application before the Deputy Commissioner for cancellation of the land allotted in favour of Harnam Singh. Deputy Commissioner cancelled the allotment of the land measuring 25 kanals 15 marlas out of the total land allotted to Harnam Singh and, thus, up-held the allotment qua 89 kanals 10 marlas. The land measuring 12 kanals 5 marlas was part of the land, allotment of which was cancelled and the same was in possession of the mother of the petitioners. The Deputy Commissioner accordingly CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.12537 OF 2007 :{ 3 }: allotted this 12 kanals 5 marlas of land in favour of the petitioners. Harnam Singh challenged this order through a writ petition before this Court but the same was dismissed on 20.12.2002. Thereafter, Harnam Singh filed a revision petition before the Commissioner, Ferozepur Division, who came to hold that Harnam Singh was not an ex-serviceman and, therefore, the entire land measuring 101 kanals in favour of Harnam Singh was liable to be re-examined. The petition filed by the petitioners, however, was accepted and allotment of land measuring 12 kanals 5 marlas, which was done on the basis of their possession, was upheld. Against this order, Harnam Singh, through his L.Rs filed a petition before the Financial Commissioner, who has now set-aside the allotment of land made in favour of the petitioners. Financial Commissioner has remanded the case back to the Deputy Commissioner for determining the status of the predecessor of respondent Nos.4 to 6, as ex.serviceman. The respondents have separately filed Civil Writ Petition No.13727 of 2007 to impugn the same order. Notice in both the writ petitions was issued and that is how the same are being heard together and are being disposed of by this common order. The allotment of land in favour of the petitioners for 12 kanals 5 marlas land and up-held by the Commissioner is set-aside by the Financial Commissioner only on the ground that there was no application filed by the petitioners for allotment of land in their favour. Learned counsel for the petitioners has placed on record Annexure P-1, which is an application filed by them for allotment of this land in their favour on the basis of possession. Even the Commissioner had CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.12537 OF 2007 :{ 4 }: noticed in his order that there was an application filed by the petitioners and on the basis of the same, this land was allotted in their favour. The finding by the Financial Commissioner in this background that this land was allotted in favour of the petitioners without there being any request, as such appears to be against the facts on record. Even otherwise, there should not be much dispute in regard to possession of land with the petitioners is concerned. Though this land was a part of the land allotted to Harnam Singh but he had left the claim over this land long ago on 5.9.1980. This fact is not disputed by counsel for the respondents, who is representing them in the connected writ petition. The allotment of land in favour of the respondents was up-held to the extent of 89 kanals 10 marlas. The finding was that the respondents could not be allotted land more than 10 acres. The allotment in favour of the respondents to the extent of 21 kanals 15 marlas was accordingly cancelled. This order has now been interfered with by the Financial Commissioner only on the ground that the status of Harnam Singh as an ex-serviceman and Rai Sikh should be ascertained. 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 marlas 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 CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.12537 OF 2007 :{ 5 }: 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. Both the writ petitions are accordingly disposed of in view of the observations made above. There shall no order as to costs. March 30,2009 ( RANJIT SINGH ) khurmi JUDGE