IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. L.P.A. No.221 of 2009(O&M) Date of decision: 11.12.2009 Anokh Singh & others. -----Appellants Vs. The State of Punjab and others. -----Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GURDEV SINGH Present:- Mr. Gulshan Sharma, Advocate for the appellants in LPA Nos.221 to 223/2009 & Mr. Arun Jain, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Amit Jain, Advocate for the appellant in LPA No.251 of 2009. --- ORDER: 1. This order will dispose of LPA Nos.221 to 223 of 2009 and LPA No.251 of 2009, which arise from common order of learned Single Judge, dismissing the writ petitions for allotment of land. 2. The appellants are displaced persons. On account of partition in the year 1947, they were compensated by allotting land in lieu of the land left by them in the area which now falls in Pakistan. The allotments were made in their favour under a scheme framed under the provisions of the East Punjab Administration of Evacuee Property Act, 1947. However, a decision was taken that for allotment of higher value land, a cut in entitlement be imposed. This scheme was, accordingly, LPA No.221 of 2009 implemented and the remaining land was vested in the Central Government under the provisions of the Displaced Persons (Compensation & Rehabilitation) Act, 1954. 3. The scheme was challenged by the appellants by filing writ petitions in this Court, but their challenge failed. The view taken by this Court was affirmed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in its judgment dated 12.12.1983 in Chandi Kumar Kapur v. Chief Settlement Commissioner, Punjab and others Civil Appeal No.2057 of 1970, AIR 1984 SC 463. It was observed that on payment of extra premium, some of the allottees were allowed allotment of land of higher value and the appellants may have been entitled to parity, but for the fact that period of 30 years had passed. In changed circumstances, there may be no justification for parity. However, while dismissing the appeal, it was observed that the order did not preclude the authorities from considering the claim of the appellants. Relevant observations are as under:- “........We do not know if under the changed circumstances the same benefit is available to be extended to the appellant now, viz., permitting him to pay the extra premium at present. More than 30 years have passed and with the passage of such a length of time changed situations must have come to prevail. We had no justification to accept the appeal and allow the benefit claimed by the appellant. But our dismissal of the appeal should not preclude the respondent authorities from entertaining the offer by the appellant, if made, to pay the extra premium and/or any further demand with a view to obtaining a 2 LPA No.221 of 2009 lawful settlement of the entire property without cut on the basis of the initial allotment.” 4. The appellants put forward their claim before the Government and vide order dated 25.7.1996, the Government took a decision in favour of the appellants in the following terms:- “xx xx xx xx xx 2. The matter has been considered and it has been decided to fix the price of the Sub Urban land of Jalandhar @ Rs.71,500/- per standard acre in order to settle the claims of the remaining 20 allottees. These rates shall be applicable for those allottees only and not for any other purpose. The price of the sub urban land which is still undisposed of and is undisputed possession of the 20 allottees out of the cancelled area may be sold to them after due verification and working out the exact area at the above rate. The offer may be issued to such allottees making them clear that the price should be deposited into the Government treasury within 2 months from the date of issue of offer. The rates fixed shall remain applicable upto 15.11.1996.” 5. The said decision was not given effect on account of pendency of some litigation by some other displaced persons who had filed writ petition in this Court. The said writ petition was dismissed vide order dated 21.11.2006, Annexure P-4 being CWP No.6168 of 1995 Tehal Singh v. Union of India and others. Thereafter, decision taken by the Government on 25.7.1996 was cancelled. This gave rise to filing of writ petitions 3 LPA No.221 of 2009 by the appellants, leading to passing of the impugned order by learned Single Judge. 6. Contention raised on behalf of the appellants is that once a policy decision was taken by the Government on 25.7.1996 in pursuance of observations made by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, there was no occasion to cancel the same. This contention was opposed by submitting that claim of the appellants had been negatived in the earlier round of litigation. Annexure P-1 was not a decision but only a proposal. The same was never communicated to the appellants but was inter-departmental communication. After due consideration, the same was cancelled. No right accrued in favour of the appellants. Allotments in favour of the appellants had been cancelled long ago, which had become final upto the Hon’ble Supreme Court. The appellants had, thus, no right which could be enforced before the Court. 7. Learned Single Jude after considering the rival submissions, held that though the Court could not extend the benefit in terms of letter dated 25.7.1996, Annexure P-1, allotment could be made at a price which may be determined in open auction. The appellants did not accept the said offer. In such circumstances, it was observed that the writ petitions could not be accepted though the State would be at liberty to take appropriate decision at its own level in accordance with law. 8. We have heard learned counsel for the appellants. 4 LPA No.221 of 2009 9. Contention raised on behalf of the appellants is that there was discrimination, as noticed in the order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, as some of the allottees were allowed to retain the allotments on payment of extra premium, without such opportunity being available to the appellants. In such circumstances, the decision of the Government dated 25.7.1996, though not conveyed to the appellants, should not have been cancelled. 10. We are unable to accept the submission. 11. The order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court clearly negatived the claim of the appellants having regard to change of circumstances after lapse of 30 years. Only discretion was left with the State Government to reconsider the matter. No fresh decision was ever conveyed to the appellants. Mere departmental communication in favour of the appellants did not confer any enforceable right. 12. We, thus, do not find any ground to interfere with the view taken by the learned Single Judge. 13. The appeals are dismissed. (ADARSH KUMAR GOEL) JUDGE December 11, 2009 ( GURDEV SINGH ) ashwani JUDGE 5