IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.4949 of 1987 (O&M) Date of decision:16.11.2011 Suba Ram (deceased) through his LRs and others ...Petitioners versus The State of Haryana, through the Secretary to Government Haryana, Rehabilitation Department, Chandigarh, and others ....Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN ---- Present: Mr. Sanjay Majithia, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Shailendra Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr. O.P. Sharma, Additional Advocate General, Haryana. ---- 1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? No. 2. To be referred to the reporters or not ? No. 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest ? No. ---- K.Kannan, J. (Oral) 1. The challenge is to the order of cancellation of allotment made under the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act of 1954. The property had been allotted to the petitioner as a displaced person from the erstwhile area in India that became Pakistan in respect of 21 standard acres and 1 ¾ units. The extent was evidently to compensate and rehabilitate the petitioner for the extent of property which he had lost in his migration to India Civil Writ Petition No.4949 of 1987 (O&M) - 2 - at the time of partition. A Conveyance Deed had also been issued on 26.11.1962. The allotment was said to have been reappraised on a complaint by one Amin Chand in the year 1976 stating that the property had been treated as if it was as a “non-perennial land”, while it was actually a “perennial land” which came under the water flow of the Bhakra system. The Chief Settlement Commissioner, who refused to reopen the issue and passed an order on 01.01.1982 chose to up the issue again on the complaint of the 4th respondent Wassam Ram, Lambardar of the Village, stating that the property had been assessed at 10 annas per acre that showed the property was a ‘perennial land’ and the entitlement of the petitioner could not have been 21 standard acres and 1 ¾ units, but should have been reduced by a further extent of 17 standard acres. This objection was upheld and the impugned order came to be passed on 30.04.1986 by the Chief Settlement Commissioner. Pursuant to this, alleged excess property was sought to be auctioned on 09.01.1987 when thanks to the judicial intervention of this Court in the above case, the action was stopped. 2. The learned senior counsel for the petitioner contends that the property which had been dealt with by the Central Government and a sanad that was issued in the name of the President could not have been reopened and made the subject of cancellation without any sanction or approval from the Central Civil Writ Petition No.4949 of 1987 (O&M) - 3 - Government. The learned counsel would read Section 32 viz., the power to give direction as preemptory in its scope and the delegation of power to the authorities as contemplated under Section 34 as such delegation which would empower the State Government to act only through the Central Government notification. The counsel would argue that there was no specific notification or a direction by the Central Government empowering the State to cancel an allotment that had been made by the Central Government. 3. The learned counsel would further argue that the conversion of ‘non-perennial’ to ‘perennial’ through a notification issued by the Public Works Department on 04.08.1962 did not specifically spell out the conversion of the property allotted to the petitioner as having been converted to “perennial” and in any event a notification by the Public Works Department shall not whittle down the allotment made by the Central Government under the Act. It is also contended that the power of revision by the Chief Settlement Commissioner ought to be exercised within a reasonable time and an allotment made in the year 1962 could not have been reopened after nearly 2 decades especially when the petitioner himself was not guilty of any fraud or suppression, the cancellation could not have been, therefore, made. 4. Several decisions are cited by the learned counsel to support ever one of the contentions made. I would not think it necessary to reproduce all of them but I will confine it only to the Civil Writ Petition No.4949 of 1987 (O&M) - 4 - issue of how an allotment which was made in the year 1962 could not have been the subject of a cancellation nearly 2 decades later when the petitioner himself was not guilty of any suppression or fraud. There is adequate case law on that as well and the Division Bench of this Court dealt with the similar situation under the same Act in Karam Chand Thakar Dass Versus Union of India and another-AIR 1967 Punjab and Haryana 85 that dealt with the expression “any time” under Section 24 of the Central Act of 1954 to be understood as within a reasonable time and a delay such as 19 years, the Bench ruled cannot be said to be a reasonable period when the Commissioner could reopen the issue. The same point was also considered in yet another decision in Bal Krishan Mukhi Versus Commissioner, Revenue, Haryana State and another-1976 PLJ 443. The decision was again in the context of Section 24 and the power to cancel an allotment. The Bench had also adverted to Section 32 of the Act as an additional tool to uphold the contention of the petitioner that without the Central Government notification or the concurrence, there could not have been a cancellation. I am not prepared to examine the latter part of the judgment and would rely on this only to the preponderance of authority of this Court that an expression “any time” contained under Section 24 must be a reasonable time and the intervention by the authority for cancellation could not be after such a long period, especially when the allottee himself had not been guilty of any fraud. In The Estates Civil Writ Petition No.4949 of 1987 (O&M) - 5 - Development Limited (in liquidation) through its Official Liquidator Versus Union of India and others-AIR 1970 Supreme Court 1978, the Hon’ble Supreme Court dealt with the provisions of Section 24(2) that held that if there was no fraud practiced by the allottee, it could not be a justification for cancellation. This may not be strictly applicable to us, for, the Hon’ble Supreme Court was not considering the effect of Section 24(1) which is wider in its scope that would make the legality or propriety of allotment as justifying the exercise of revisional power. 5. In this case, it is not as if the State could not have known that the property had been allotted to the petitioner by the Central Government. The notification from the Public Works Department treating the property as having perennial source of water supply had been made in the year 1962 and it could not have been a mere secret act. If the State had allowed for the allotment to stay with the allottee for 2 decades, I would not find a justification for the State to reopen the issue after such a long time and I would hasten to go with the pronouncements of this Court in limiting the scope of Section 24 to interventions which are reasonable and proper. 6. The impugned orders are set aside and the writ petition is allowed. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE 16.11.2011 sanjeev