Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2001 DIGILAW 291 (PNJ)

Lakhbir Singh v. State of Punjab

2001-03-02

JAWAHAR LAL GUPTA, N.K.SUD

body2001
JUDGMENT Jawahar Lal Gupta, J. (Oral) - A piece of land measuring 6 Kanals 4 marlas is the bone of contention between the petitioner and the third respondent. The petitioner claimed the allotment of this land. Vide order dated April 28, 1988 the Tehsildar rejected this claim on the ground that the petitioner was not in continuous possession from Rabi 1984. The petitioner filed an appeal under Section 8 of the Punjab Package Deal Properties (Disposal) Act, 1976. The Sales Commissioner accepted his claim and remitted the matter to the Tehsildar. The third respondent who is a displaced person filed a revision petition before the Chief Sales Commissioner. It was dismissed vide order dated April 22, 1991. A second revision petition before the Commissioner also met with the same fate. A copy of the order dated April 29, 1993 is at Annexure P-5 with the writ petition. Undaunted, he filed a petition before the Financial Commissioner. Vide order dated May 29, 1997 the Financial Commissioner has accepted the claim It has been found that Lakhbir Singh, the present petitioner, was ineligible for allotment of land. Thus, the orders passed by the Sales Commissioner, the Chief Sales Commissioner and the Commissioner have been set aside. Aggrieved by the order, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition. He prays that the orders, copies of which are at Annexures P-1 and P-6 respectively, be quashed. 2. The claim made on behalf of the petitioner has been controverted in the written statement filed on behalf of the respondents. 3. Counsel for the parties have been heard. 4. Mr. Manhas, learned counsel for the petitioner, contends that the authorities have erred in holding that the petitioner was not eligible. It is contended that the petitioner has been in possession since 1984. According to the press note the petitioner was eligible. This claim has been controverted by Mr. Nagra, appearing for the third respondent. It has been submitted that the land in dispute is a part of the evacuee property. It was meant to be allotted to the displaced persons. The petitioner is not a displaced person. He had unauthorisedly occupied the land. Since he was not eligible for the transfer of land, the impugned orders are legal and valid. 5. Admittedly the petitioner is not a displaced person. It was meant to be allotted to the displaced persons. The petitioner is not a displaced person. He had unauthorisedly occupied the land. Since he was not eligible for the transfer of land, the impugned orders are legal and valid. 5. Admittedly the petitioner is not a displaced person. The Tehsildar and the Financial Commissioner have recorded a categorical finding that the petitioner has not been in possession of the land since Rabi 1984. Nothing has been pointed out from the record to show that the finding is incorrect. It is not disputed that in the absence of evidence of possession from Rabi, 1984, a person shall not be eligible for the allotment of land. Still further, we are clearly of the opinion that evacuee property is meant to rehabilitate the displaced persons. It is meant to help the needy and not the greedy. Persons like the petitioner who unauthorisedly occupied the land have no equity in their favour so as to invoke the equitable jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. The petitioner has no claim to the land. We find no infirmity in the view taken by the competent authority. 6. Mr. Manhas has placed reliance on the decision of a Division Bench of this Court in Bishan Singh and others v. Chief Settlement Commissioner, 1973 PLJ 183. The appellants in that case were displaced persons from West Pakistan. They were not persons like the petitioner who had unauthorisedly occupied the Government property. Still further, it was found by the Bench that the press note of 1962 protected their claims. The petitioner being not a displaced person can derive no advantage from this decision. 7. Lastly, the counsel has contended that land can be transferred in the name of the petitioner on the basis of the press note, a copy of which has been produced as Annexure P-7 with the writ petition. The date on which the press note has been issued has not been indicated. The petitioner is not shown to have made any application to the competent authority under this press note. In this situation, no ground for the issue of any direction for the consideration of the petitioners claim in terms of this press note is made out. No other point has been raised. In view of the above, we find no merit in this petition. It is, consequently, dismissed. No costs. In this situation, no ground for the issue of any direction for the consideration of the petitioners claim in terms of this press note is made out. No other point has been raised. In view of the above, we find no merit in this petition. It is, consequently, dismissed. No costs. Petition dismissed.