CWP No.3450 of 2008 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No.3450 of 2008 Date of decision:16.07.2010 Mohinder Singh and another ...... Petitioners VERSUS State of Punjab through Secretary to Government of Punjab, Chandigarh, and others ......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAJIVE BHALLA. Present: Mr.Gurcharan Dass, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr.C.S.Brar, DAG, Punjab for respondents no.1 to 4. Mr.Gaurav Chopra, Advocate for respondent no.5. ***** RAJIVE BHALLA.J (Oral) The petitioners pray for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the order dated 02.08.2007, passed by the District Collector, Faridkot, whereby their claim for allotment of land has been rejected. The petitioners land measuring 20 kanals and 7 marlas was acquired for excavating a drain. The drain apparently fell into disuse on account of setting up of a Cantonment. The petitioners, sold the surrounding land to respondent no.5 who claims to have levelled the drain and began cultivating it. The petitioners application for return of this land in accordance with Paragraph 493 of the Punjab Land Administration Manual, has been rejected. Counsel for the petitioners submits that as the land was acquired from the petitioners and is no longer required, it should be returned to them in terms of Paragraph 493 of the Punjab Land Administration Manual. It is CWP No.3450 of 2008 -2- argued that the petitioners application for return of the land, in terms of Paragraph 493 of the Punjab Land Administration Manual, has been arbitrarily rejected on the ground that the land has been utilised and in case the Department proposes to sell the land, it would be sold in open auction. Counsel for the State of Punjab, on the other hand, submits that the drain can be utilised by the State of Punjab for draining out water from the Cantonment. The claim put-forth by the petitioners was rightly rejected as Paragraph 493 of the Punjab Land Administration Manual, does not set out a binding mandate to the State, to return the land to the original owner. The petitioners even otherwise have no legal right to claim that the land should be returned as the Drainage Department has not taken any decision whether the land should be sold. Counsel for respondent no.5 submits that respondent no.5 is in possession of land in dispute and though his ejectment has been ordered the land can only be sold to him as the original drain is surrounded by his land. I have heard counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order. The petitioners claim has been rejected by the Collector on the premise that the land has been utilised for excavating a drain and therefore, cannot be held to be surplus so as to be returned to the petitioners. The decision not to return the land to the petitioners or to sell it by way of public auction or to dispose it of in accordance with policies framed by the Government from time to time falls to the discretion of the Government. The discretion exercised by the District Collector, in rejecting the plea of the petitioners for return of the land in accordance with Paragraph 493 of the Punjab Land Administration Manual, is neither arbitrary nor perverse or contrary to law. The land in dispute is a strip of land surrounded by land CWP No.3450 of 2008 -3- owned by respondent no.5. The mere fact that the land in dispute was owned by the petitioners would not entitle them to a direction that the land must be sold to them. Paragraph 493 of the Punjab Land Administration Manual, is but one of the modes prescribed for disposal of acquired land. The petitioners have no absolute or indefeasible right to pray that the land should be allotted to them. In view of what has been stated hereinabove, I find no reason to hold in favour of the petitioners. As a consequence, the writ petition is dismissed. 16.07.2010 [RAJIVE BHALLA] shamsher JUDGE