IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH LPA No.958 of 2011(O&M) Date of decision: 05.08.2011 State of Haryana …..Appellant versus Rulha and others ……Respondents CORAM: Hon’ble Mr.Justice Jasbir Singh Hon’ble Mr.Justice Augustine George Masih Present: Mr.Kamal Sehgal, Addl.A.G. Haryana Mr.Kulwant Singh, Advocate for the respondents Jasbir Singh, J. (Oral) This appeal has been filed against an interim order dated 20.4.2011, passed by the learned Single Judge. When notice of motion was issued, following contention of counsel for the appellant was noticed by this Court on 27.5.2011:- “Counsel for the appellant states that vide an interim order dated 20.4.2011, virtually the writ petition has been decided finally. Notice of motion for 5.8.2011. Operation of the impugned order shall remain stayed. However, the learned Single Judge be at liberty to proceed further and decide the writ petition finally on merits.” Heard counsel for the parties. Orders, vide which, it was directed that respondent Nos.1 and 2 be allotted land as per their entitlement, are challenged by the State of Haryana in CWP No.17309 of 2006. On 15.3.2006, following order was passed by the learned Single Judge:- LPA No.958 of 2011(O&M) “Admittedly, the predecessors of respondents no.1 and 2 did not migrate to Pakistan but their property was inadvertently declared as evacuee property. On 9.12.1974, the Assistant Custodian General held that the predecessors of respondents no.1 and 2 are entitled to restoration of their property or to alternative allotment. The Tehsildar vide order dated 19.5.1975 allowed alternative allotment. On 6.10.2003, respondents no.1 and 2 approached the Tehsildar for restoration of possession. However, instead of restoring possession, the State of Haryana approached the Financial Commissioner by way of suo-motu reference, praying that the orders dated 9.12.1974 and 19.5.1975 be set aside. The prayer for setting aside these orders was rejected. The State of Haryana, inter alia, prays that as Section 20-B of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954 has been declared ultra virus in Lachhman Dass and others etc. v. Municipal Committee, Jalalabad and others etc. AIR1969 SC 1126 and the prayer for allotment is inordinately delayed, respondents no.1 and 2 cannot be allotted any property. I am prima facie satisfied that respondent No.1 and 2 have been deprived of their property without authority of law. The State does not allege that respondents no.1 and 2 migrated to Pakistan or that their property was rightly declared evacuee. The State of Haryana cannot be heard to urge that delay would defeat the bonafide rights of respondents no.1 and 2 an appropriation of private property, without authority or 2 LPA No.958 of 2011(O&M) law, is violative of Article 300-A of the Constitution. The State of Haryana is, bound in law and in equity to restore the property to respondents no.1 and 2 or to make alternative allotment. The affidavit of Zile Singh, Under Secretary to Govt. Haryana, Revenue and Disaster Management Department (Rehabilitation Branch) dated 21.7.2009 discloses that land is available for allotment in village Kunda Kalan (Karnal). Counsel for the State of Haryana prays for time to seek instructions, whether land can be allotted to respondents no.1 and 2. Adjourned to 20.4.2010.” Thereafter, impugned order in this appeal was passed, directing the Financial Commissioner and Principal Secretary to Government Haryana to put up a proposal for redressal of grievance of respondent Nos.1 and 2. It is contended by the State counsel that by passing that order, virtually, the writ petition has been dismissed. He has tried to impress upon us that as per the provisions of law and judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Lachhman Dass and others etc. v. Municipal Committee, Jalalabad and others etc. AIR1969 SC 1126 the respondent Nos.1 and 2 cannot be compensated. We feel that the objection raised appears to be imaginary and ill founded. Be that as it may, writ petition filed by the appellant is now fixed on 30.9.2011. This appeal is disposed of with an expectation/request that the learned Single Judge will dispose of that writ petition on the date fixed or may be immediately thereafter as per convenience of the Court 3 LPA No.958 of 2011(O&M) without insisting upon compliance of the order dated 20.4.2011. If any attempt is made by the appellant to delay the proceedings, the learned Single Judge may enforce the order passed on 20.4.2010. (Jasbir Singh) Judge 05.08.2011 (Augustine George Masih) gk Judge 4