Civil Writ Petition No. 10203 of 2007 1 Vinod Kumar and others Versus State of Punjab and others Present: Mr. R.C. Dogra, Senior Advocate with Ms. Balwinder Kaur, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Parveen Chander Goyal, Addl.A.G., Punjab for respondents No. 1 to 3. Mr. Rupinder Khosla, Advocate for respondent No. 4. ***** The petitioners are in occupation of a property in dispute which they allegedly occupied in the year 1947. Petitioners started Dairy business and thus continued to be in occupation thereof. In 1962, petitioners filed an application for grant of proprietory rights as they had occupied this land after migration from Pakistan. Pending consideration of this application, the land was transferred to Improvement Trust, Jalandhar in the year 1973. The application filed by the petitioners was dismissed in the year 1981. The petitioners filed an appeal against the same order, which was accepted on 5.10.1981. Petitioners were also given sewerage connection and are statedly paying other charges/taxes to Municipal Committee/ Corporation. In the year 2004, Trust threatened the petitioners to dispossess. The petitioners filed a suit for injunction. As per the counsel, this suit was subsequently withdrawn and this Court was approached through a writ petition. This writ petition filed by the petitioners was disposed of in the year 2005 with the direction to decide the claim of the petitioners as was the situation in some of Civil Writ Petition No. 10203 of 2007 2 the similar cases. The petitioners were required to file an application within 15 days of receipt of the order passed by the High Court before the Settlement Commissioner. Complying with this direction, the petitioner filed a petition. This was in the process of being decided when Settlement Commissioner has observed that he has no jurisdiction to adjudicate the case in view of the notification No. 33 of 2005 whereby The Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954 has been repealed. The petitioners, accordingly, has filed the present writ petition. Though the reply has been filed but during the course of arguments it is pointed out that such or similar cases have already been disposed of by the Division Bench of this Court. Copy of order passed in CWP No. 14385 of 2005 has been placed before me. Though the provisions of The Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954 stand repealed but the matter was reconsidered by the Central Government and vide letter dated 22.9.2008 the clarification has been sent to the Government of Punjab that the repeal should not effect the disposal of following categories of cases and it should be settled under the relevant State Laws: “3.1 Unsatisfied certified claims filed under the Displaced Persons (Claims) Act, 1950, in which right has accrued or has been acquired and which were pending as on 6.9.2005, the date on which the Displaced Persons (Compensation & Rehabilitation) Act, 1954 and other related Acts were repealed. Civil Writ Petition No. 10203 of 2007 3 3.2 Cases in which directions have been issued by various Courts for settlement of claims filed, confirming that an acquired or accrued right exists in favour of the claimant, under Displaced Persons (Claims) Act, 1950. 3.3 Verified claims in which full compensation has not been given so far. 3.4 Appeals and revision/review petitions filed against orders passed by the authorities prescribed under the repealed Acts which are yet to be disposed of.” It is also pointed out before me that the State of Punjab has brought out a new Bill known as the Punjab Package Deals Properties (Disposal) Amendment Bill, 2009 , which has been passed by the legislation but is yet to be notified. Noticing this factual background, the Division Bench has observed that the categories of cases referred to in the letter issued by the Central Government would survive without prejudice to any such steps that may be taken by the State. It is thus obvious that claim of the petitioners, which has been consigned to record will be open for reconsideration, either in view of the direction issued by the Central Government or in terms of the new legislation, which is yet to be notified. The case deserves to be remanded back to the Settlement Commissioner. If the case of the petitioners is such which is covered by the type of cases referred to in the letter issued by the Central Government, it would be open for the Settlement Commissioner, who was dealing with the case earlier to resume the hearing. If on the other hand, the case of the petitioners is required to be dealt with under the new legislation, the decision of the case shall await the outcome of detailment of new Civil Writ Petition No. 10203 of 2007 4 Settlement Commissioner or any other authority that have to deal with such cases. Since the case is under consideration and yet to be decided, it is only appropriate that the status quo in regard to present existing situation is maintained, till the time new authority/Settlement Commissioner is appointed to deal with such like cases. The petitioners would be at liberty to move an application within one week of appointment of Settlement Commissioner under the new legislation to seek interim order or before the Settlement Commissioner, if their case can be dealt with under the instructions issued by the Central Government. Dispossession of the petitioners shall remain stayed, till the filing of this application and subject to further order made by Settlement Commissioner. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. April 30, 2009 ( RANJIT SINGH ) rts JUDGE