Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 333 (PNJ)

Paramprit Singh Gill v. State Of Punjab

2009-02-13

RANJIT SINGH

body2009
Judgment Ranjit Singh, J. 1. Yet another freedom fighter is before the Court to get what is his due. This freedom fighter has approached the Court not to seek any favour or honour or pension but seeks return of his own property which he lost due to the action of foreign ruler through confiscation because he fought for freedom of the country. He died fighting to get back what was his own. His son is now seeking justice through present writ petition. Seeing the attitude of the State and its functionaries, this freedom fighter must be tossing in discomfort, wherever he is. Would not he be thinking that this nation has forgotten the sacrifices made so easily to deny him or his wards what is his own. This new struggle for son of freedom fighter in 60th years of our independence, to get back what was owned by his father would not show us all in good light. It does not speak well of our system. Is this the way to show gratitude to those who fought so that we can have our today ? Is this a manner in which a nation should pay gratitude to those who waged a selfless fight against the alien to get freedom for us ? Let us leave these sentiments behind and look into the grievance of the petitioner. At stake is a request by the petitioner for return of 50 acres of land, which was ordered to be confiscated by the British Rulers in this country. The petitioner is, thus, seeking return of his own property unfairly confiscated and is not seeking any favour, grantor doles, which should receive any objection. Still, the State has been totally reluctant and evasive to concede this genuine prayer made by the petitioner. Repeated efforts on the part of the Court to see reasons, failed to yield the stoney approach of bureaucratic rigidity. Of course, they would bend to grant unfair favours to those who matters but would have no consideration for a person who is asking for return of his own property confiscated by rulers who somehow were wanting to retain their rule. If the details are sought, it would reveal how the influential people have been instrumental in getting some prime lands allotted, bye passing all norms and have been able to make fortunes. If the details are sought, it would reveal how the influential people have been instrumental in getting some prime lands allotted, bye passing all norms and have been able to make fortunes. But a genuine demand by a person for return of something which was his own and in term of policy would be contested with all their mights by those who are enjoying freedom due to such freedom fighter. They can not be expected to change their attitude. The Court would proceed to decide the prayer made in the petition. First a few facts. 2. Sampuran Singh, Bar at Law, father of the petitioner was an M.L.A from Lyallpur (Pakistan). He was leader of opposition during pre-partition days. He was one of the leading personalities in waging freedom struggle against the British Rule during 1930-40. He took part in Satya Greh launched by Mahatma Gandhi Ji during second world war. He also participated in Quit India movement in the year 1942. The British Government treated his activities as act of treason and confiscated 50 acres of agriculture land belonging to him and situated in Pir Mahal, District Lyallpur (Pakistan). This was byway of penalty. It was statedly a fertile land. 3. After independence in the year 1947, the father of the petitioner came to India. He was appointed as first Deputy High Commissioner in Pakistan. He submitted a representation on 11.12.1948 to Government of Punjab, stating therein that 50 acres of his fertile agriculture land was confiscated by British Government and made a prayer for restoration of the property to him. It is averred that the Punjab Government made enquiries from the Government of West Pakistan about the veracity of the facts stated. It was then revealed that the land of the father of the petitioner was resumed in the year 1942 due to his ceasing to be loyal to the Crown. Chief Secretary, Punjab, then wrote a letter No. 4861-WG-57/58152, dated18.7.1958, stating that the enquiries made from West Pakistan Government show that the land was resumed in the year 1942, since he ceased to be loyal to the Crown and accordingly requested the father of the petitioner to name the exact National movement in which he participated. Copy of this letter is annexed as Annexure P-1. Copy of this letter is annexed as Annexure P-1. In response, the father of the petitioner informed the Chief Secretary, Government Punjab, through his letter dated 25.7.1958 that his land was resumed on account of taking part in Satya Grehstarted by Mahatma Gandhi Ji after the second world war began. The father of the petitioner had remained in jail for some days along with Dr.Gopi Chand Bhargwa, his P.A. Mulkh Raj and several others. The father of the petitioner had further mentioned that his case was heard by Harder son, I.C.S. and he was fined one anna for the offence. On his refusal to pay, the same was paid by the Magistrate and was so entered in the order. The original copy of the order had been sent to the Chief Secretary. It is then mentioned that the father of the petitioner was called by Commissioner, Multan (Mr. Ram Chander, ICS). It was on his order that the land of the father of the petitioner was confiscated for taking part in Satya Greh. The father of the petitioner further mentioned that he would not have any further information and if need be, it may be collected from Dr. Gopi Chand Bhargwa or other persons who were in jail with him. 4. Unfortunately, the father of the petitioner died in the year 1958. The other family members were unaware of the communication that was in progress between the Government and father of the petitioner for restoration of the confiscated land. In the year 1979, the mother of the petitioner, while going through the old papers, came across the afore-mentioned letters. She accordingly wrote a letter dated 3.9.1979 to the Chief Minister, Punjab, for restoration of the confiscated land. Copy of this letter is also annexed with the petition as Annexure P-3. She received a response through letter No. 7(68) 5PII-79/6072, dated 29.5.1980, copy of which is at Annexure P-4. Mother of the petitioner was requested to intimate if any claim for compensation in lieu of confiscated property was made by her latehusb and or by her upto 15.12.1973, which was stated to be the last date of submission of such applications. If it was so, she was asked to supply copies of the relevant documents duly attested for taking further action. If it was so, she was asked to supply copies of the relevant documents duly attested for taking further action. In response, the mother of the petitioner informed the Government that her husband had made a claim in this behalf on 11.12.1948, much before the last date i.e. 15.12.1973. She also enclosed with the application, a photostat copy of the letter received from the Chief Secretary, Government of Punjab, dated 18.7.1958,confirming the receipt of complaint. She further pointed out that her husband died soon after this development in the year 1958. 5. Mother of the petitioner, then received a communication dated 26.5.1981, asking for the full particulars of village and Chak number, where this land was situated. This information was accordingly supplied by mother of the petitioner vide letter dated 29.6.1981. Some further information was sought by the Government through letter dated 24.11.1981. She was informed that claim for compensation could not be accepted without verification of the confiscated land by the Revenue Authorities. The mother of the petitioner then wrote a letter dated 19.4.1982 and provided the information sought. She also made a mention that Government of Punjab in the year 1958 had satisfied itself about the confiscation of land after enquiries from authorities in Pakistan. She followed this by sending various reminders dated 17.5.1982, 26.5.1982, 26.6.1982, 20.8.1982 and 29.7.1983. When she found that her representations were not being attended to and her efforts were going in vain, she, on 28.11.83, represented to the then Governor, Punjab. She was granted opportunity of personal hearing. She (mother of the petitioner) thus, met the Governor on 2.1.1984 and explained to him the entire position. She also gave him a representation dated 2.1.1984. She did not get any response from the Governor as well. She later sent a reminder on 7.2.1984. 6. The petitioner also appears to have joined in efforts with her mother and sent various reminders. Ultimately, on 19.8.1985, the petitioner received a letter from respondent No. 1, intimating that the matter is under consideration with the Embassy of India in Pakistan and the petitioner would be informed as and when any information is received. 6. The petitioner also appears to have joined in efforts with her mother and sent various reminders. Ultimately, on 19.8.1985, the petitioner received a letter from respondent No. 1, intimating that the matter is under consideration with the Embassy of India in Pakistan and the petitioner would be informed as and when any information is received. On 2.2.1987, respondent No. 1 addressed a letter to Deputy Commissioner, Chandigarh, stating that upon verification, the Government has decided to pay compensation of the confiscated property to the legal heirs of the father of the petitioner and accordingly requested the Deputy Commissioner to verify the names and addresses of the legal heirs so as to disburse compensation. Still, the matter remained pending. The mother of the petitioner wrote yet another letter dated 27.2.1987, requesting for allotment of 50acres of land or compensation in lieu thereof. She demanded Rs. 30 lacs. She also sent a copy of the news item, indicating that the Punjab Government had decided to pay a sum of Rs. 20 lacs as compensation for a land measuring 45 acres to a freedom fighters family. Still, the issue remained un-resolved. 7. The petitioner then wrote another letter dated 18.8.1992, requesting for adequate compensation. He then received a letter dated 3.11.1992, intimating that the matter regarding grant of compensation was under active consideration of the State. Petitioner then informed the Government about the death of his mother. He also forwarded an affidavit from his sister that she had released her share in favour of the petitioner. Ultimately, the petitioner received a letter dated 3.6.1993, granting a sum of Rs. 72,050/- as compensation in lieu of 50 acres of agriculture land confiscated in the year 1942. A perusal of the letter annexed with the petition as Annexure P-22 would show that sum of Rs. 17,300/- is taken as a principal amount for price of 50 acres of land and sum of Rs. 54,750/- is calculated as interest from 1.4.1942 to 31.5.1993. Thus, Rs. 72,050/- is the amount, which is assessed by the Government for being paid to a freedom fighter. What a benevolence, if it may be called so? Obviously, the petitioner was to respond that this compensation was inadequate and requested the Government to reexamine the matter. Indeed the compensation offered was wholly inadequate, unfair and unreasonable. Instead, the petitioner received a draft dated 22.6.1993 amounting to Rs. 72,050/-. What a benevolence, if it may be called so? Obviously, the petitioner was to respond that this compensation was inadequate and requested the Government to reexamine the matter. Indeed the compensation offered was wholly inadequate, unfair and unreasonable. Instead, the petitioner received a draft dated 22.6.1993 amounting to Rs. 72,050/-. This is then challenged by the petitioner by filing the present writ petition before this Court, pleading that the action of the respondents is arbitrary, unfair, violative of the rules and instructions and, thus, be quashed. The compensation was accepted under protest. 8. The writ petition was admitted on 14.11.1994. It came up for hearing on number of occasions before different Benches but could not be decided. 9. On 28.1.2005, when the matter came up for hearing before this Court, the State was directed to produce official record/file containing the noting dated 21.6.1948. On 7.2.2005, time was sought to produce this file, which had statedly been inspected by the petitioner himself in the office of Deputy Secretary, Department General Administration, Punjab, Mini Secretariat. The matter was delisted but was ordered to be set down for hearing in March 2007. 10. When the writ petition came up for hearing on 4.2.2008,the Court expressed itself strongly and observed that the freedom fighters, who fought for the Nation, should not now be made to fight cases in the Court. A wish was expressed that the State can be expected to be gracious to give back at least something, which was illegally and unfairly taken away from such persons by foreign rulers. The concerned official/Secretary/Chief Secretary was required to pass appropriate orders. The Government still remained unresponsive. The petitioner is not one who would matter for officials. He is son of a freedom fighter having no priority in the officials thinking. 11. The arguments were heard in part. Unfortunate would it be to notice that each of the counsel representing the State would nod at the sentiments and the view expressed through the orders that the petitioner deserves better treatment and return of his property but would come back to inform the Court that the Government or the Secretaries are not prepared to pass the order. This was the stand, which was conveyed to the Court despite the Court expressing itself asking for fair treatment to the petitioner. The response to the petition was also not something which could be said to be justified. This was the stand, which was conveyed to the Court despite the Court expressing itself asking for fair treatment to the petitioner. The response to the petition was also not something which could be said to be justified. As a preliminary objection, it is stated that the petition is not warranted under any statutory Act. Joint Secretary, Department of General Administration, who filed this reply on behalf of the State, took second preliminary objection to the effect that "the benefit of compensation for the property confiscated by the British Government from those freedom fighters who took part in the liberation of the country from foreign rule has been extended as a token of honour to the freedom fighters. This concession cannot be claimed by them as a matter of statutory right." 12. In fact, this objection would reflect the apathetic attitude of the Government and its functionaries. What a stand ? A person who is asking for return of his own confiscated property is being told that this is a token of honour for him and he can not claim it as a matter of statutory right. Is any statute needed for a person to seek return of his confiscated property when the ground of confiscation was participation in freedom struggle ? Did these freedom fighters fought for freedom of this country to be told that they can not ask for return of their own property ? Can anyone ever think or imagine that a freedom fighter would be told that he has no statutory right to seek back his property, which was confiscated by foreign ruler because he participated in freedom struggle. If it is an honour, as stated, then why should it not be bestowed on him. Respondents have failed to appreciate the sensitivity of the issues at stake. 13. To my mind, the person filing the reply is totally misconceived in his entire approach. So seems to be the stand of the Government and its functionaries. They are findings ways to deny this relief to the petitioner. State has admitted that father of the petitioner participated in Quit India Movement but still would advance one reason or the other to say that record does not indicate anywhere if 50 acres of land was confiscated. So seems to be the stand of the Government and its functionaries. They are findings ways to deny this relief to the petitioner. State has admitted that father of the petitioner participated in Quit India Movement but still would advance one reason or the other to say that record does not indicate anywhere if 50 acres of land was confiscated. The person filing the reply would not see a letter Annexure P-1 dated 18.7.1958, where the Chief Secretary himself had acknowledged that the enquiries made from West Pakistan Government revealed that land was resumed in the year 1942 as the father of the petitioner had ceased to be loyal to the Crown. The only information sought through this letter was the name of the movement in which the father of the petitioner had participated. See now what all the person filing the reply would say in this regard by pointing out that father of the petitioner had abandoned 185 standard acres of land in Pakistan in lieu of which he was allotted 75 standard acres of land in Jalandhar. What is given is something due to the petitioner/his father. This would not be any indication that the abandoned land included 50acres of confiscated land. In fact, this would be seen from the reply itself where it is mentioned that in the absence of Jamabandi applied after 1942, the fact of confiscation can not be ascertained. It is then stated that benefit of doubt was given in favour of the petitioner and, thus, a princely sum of Rs. 72,050/- paid to freedom fighter as compensation. Out of this, the value of 50 acres land is Rs. 17,300/- only. The stand of the Government advanced in the reply and then before the Court, thus, is unfair, unreasonable and unjustified and deserve to be rejected. 14. A perusal of the record produced by the State would not leave much doubt in regard to the fact that father of the petitioner indeed had suffered this order of confiscation at the hands of British Rulers. The fact that the then Chief Secretary in the year 1958 had admitted this fact after verification from West Pakistan is not disputed at all. How could then the Government be permitted to take a different stand in contradiction to the one taken earlier after verification. The fact that the then Chief Secretary in the year 1958 had admitted this fact after verification from West Pakistan is not disputed at all. How could then the Government be permitted to take a different stand in contradiction to the one taken earlier after verification. The stand now taken on behalf of the Government appears to be a stand of convenience. The Government and its functionaries would be too eager to oblige undeserving persons but would have no time to consider and be fair to a person who has sacrificed so much for the Nation. One can find enough evidence of allotment of land to those influential person who can manage to pull some strings in the Government but all persons like petitioner would struggle to get even their dues. The approach generally, as noticed, is to discard freedom fighters and those allotted lands for showing valour while fighting war for country by giving them such land as would be of virtually no value. Undue favours are due to those who can have a say somewhere. Even the officials who came to assist the State counsel in this case, were evading to produce the policy instructions which were referred to and relied by the petitioner, for which this Court had to use certain harsh words. Then the same noting was placed before the Court from the file carried by the official in the Court. This is a noting where this case, as projected by the father of the petitioner, had been dealt with. The copy of the noting would show that the decision was taken to grant compensation of Rs. 17,300/-. While referring to the policy, it is stated that this was yet to be finalised. It is also mentioned in the note that the State Government vide decision of the Chief Minister dated 21.6.1948 was to restore the confiscated properties to the freedom fighters and incase of their death to the direct descendants. It is also mentioned that the policy has been in existence since 1948 but in the year 1978,the Relief and Rehabilitation Board vide their deliberation dated20.2.1978 had decided that where freedom fighter had not married and had died, the restoration of the property shall be made to his legal heirs. A case of one Bakshish Singh is noticed where Board in its meeting on 17.7.1979 had decided to grant his descendants a sum of Rs. A case of one Bakshish Singh is noticed where Board in its meeting on 17.7.1979 had decided to grant his descendants a sum of Rs. 14,000/- and also the interest thereon. It is mentioned that both the decisions (of Bakshish Singh and the petitioner) were not in line with the then existing policy. It is then stated that the State Government has been making efforts to finalise its policy in the context of those deliberation of the Board but previously the Deputy Commissioners had reported that there were no such properties in their districts. It is also noticed that properties were there in the case of following persons :- "Sh. Bakshish Singh, Sh. Kala Singh, Sh. Chanan Singh and Sh. Khushal Singh." 15. It is then noticed that with a view to finalise the policy, it was decided to ascertain the extent of property as was confiscated.Deputy Commissioner, though, had earlier reported that there was no such property in his district but he was again asked to go into this matter. It is then noticed that assessment of the property is going to be finalised within a week and thereafter the policy will be finalised seeking the approval of the Council of Ministers, for which the memorandum will be put up for approval of the Chief Minister after consultation with the Finance Department. It is also noticed that the Chief Minister at his level had approved as under:- "a) No alternative evacuee land is to be provided in lieu of the confiscated property. b) The interest is to be paid on the compensation for the property was confiscated and that compensation is to be paid. c) The restoration of property compensation may be paid to the legal heirs also where direct descendants are not available and the freedom fighters had died and were not married." 16. It is further noticed that approval of the policy will besought on these lines. c) The restoration of property compensation may be paid to the legal heirs also where direct descendants are not available and the freedom fighters had died and were not married." 16. It is further noticed that approval of the policy will besought on these lines. Importantly it is noticed that the author of the note has mentioned "I am to make it clear that it is not correct that the State Government had not adopted a policy of restoration of land in lieu of the confiscated property but the present policy in this case is still to be finalised in view of latest decision of the National Worker Relief and Rehabilitation Board dated 20.2.1978 and 12.7.1979 referred to above." On this note written by one H.S. Bains dated 6.3.1987, the Chief Secretary wrote as under :- "After this case was raised in the last but one session the matter should have been pursued vigorously. Will the DSYY please ensure that we have the DCs response urgently ? The position may be reported to me by the 15th latest." Thereafter, another note is endorsed by Mr. Bains, which reads as under :- "I have made a detailed note on the main file. She has asked for the grant of land measuring 50 acres in lieu of the same quantity of land left in Pakistan. As a result until a policy is decided it may not be appropriate to disburse any compensation because in case it is decided to grant land then it will not be advisable for us to recover this compensation, which is being given as goodwill gesture. This case may, therefore, be decided after a policy is adopted on the main case, which has already been sent up. Also kindly peruse my note dated 6.3.1987 above for orders kindly." 17. The two things would clearly emerge out from these notings as reproduced above. One that there was a policy approved by the Chief Minister in the year 1948 to restore the confiscated properties to the freedom fighters and in case of his death to the direct descendants. Some where in the year 1979, Relief and Rehabilitation Department decided to grant the descendants of freedom fighters a compensation and also interest thereon. This decision of the Rehabilitation Board was not in line with the existing policy of the State Government. Some where in the year 1979, Relief and Rehabilitation Department decided to grant the descendants of freedom fighters a compensation and also interest thereon. This decision of the Rehabilitation Board was not in line with the existing policy of the State Government. It is in this context the notings as reproduced above followed. It appears that the Government was formulating some new policy and it was to be placed for approval, of the Chief Minister in consultation with the F.D (Finance Department).The Chief Minister had also, at his level, approved that no alternative evacuee land is to be provided. Obviously, the policy was to restore the confiscated property. The note of Mr. Bains dated 24.3.1987would show that he advocated for not disbursing any compensation as the mother of the petitioner had asked for grant of land measuring50 acres and the policy was yet to be decided. Here this approach seems to be a misconceived one. It was new policy which was being formulated but the application by the father of the petitioner was in the year 1949. Thus, the changed policy, if any, would not be the one which would govern the rights of the petitioner to claim land in lieu of the one which was confiscated in Pakistan. The note would clearly show that the Chief Minister had approved the policy on 21.6.1948 to restore the confiscated property to the freedom fighter and in case of his death to the direct descendants. The father of the petitioner died in the year 1958 and so the petitioner, who is his direct descendant is entitled to the restoration of his confiscated property in view of the policy then prevalent and any policy that had been made after 1978,obviously would not govern the case of the petitioner. It is not even the case of the State today that the policy is not to restore the confiscated property of freedom fighters. Apparently, the denial is on the ground that compensation has been paid. As mentioned in the note, the compensation was as a good will gesture and not a substitute for restoration. It was neither fair nor just. The petitioner is not seeking any favour. He is asking for his own property to be restored. He is a freedom fighter. Still, he is being asked to show statutory right in his favour. As mentioned in the note, the compensation was as a good will gesture and not a substitute for restoration. It was neither fair nor just. The petitioner is not seeking any favour. He is asking for his own property to be restored. He is a freedom fighter. Still, he is being asked to show statutory right in his favour. The State could be expected to be little gracious to the petitioner, especially so, when as per the policy, such property was required to be restored. This is the least which is expected as a gratitude to the heirs of the freedom fighters. The action of the Government as such, denying the rightful due to the petitioner can not be sustained. The petitioner has made out a case for issuance of a writ of mandamus and for issuance of a command to the respondent-State to restore the land confiscated by the British Rulers in terms of the policy that has been noticed above. On his part, the petitioner was fair enough to say that he is ready to accept whatever would be due to him on the ground that this 50 acres of land be deemed to be restored to him at the time of partition. The petitioner would be accordingly entitled to have the land as if his father owned this 50 acres of land on the date he came to India as per the policy of allotment to such persons who had left their land in Pakistan. The petitioner also is prepared to return the principal sum of compensation that he has received with interest at the rate it was paid to him. The respondent-State would take immediate action to allot this land to the petitioner as per his entitlement. If it can be somewhere near to the place where he has been allotted land in lieu of what he had admittedly left in Pakistan, it would be worth appreciation. Otherwise, the Government will locate the land at an appropriate place for allotment to the petitioner in lieu of the confiscated land. Of course, it should not be a land for which the petitioner would have to fight for getting possession. 18. The writ petition is accordingly allowed. Otherwise, the Government will locate the land at an appropriate place for allotment to the petitioner in lieu of the confiscated land. Of course, it should not be a land for which the petitioner would have to fight for getting possession. 18. The writ petition is accordingly allowed. Since the petitioner and his parents have been made to fight for getting their own property back, which was confiscated by the foreign rulers for his participation in the freedom movement, the petitioner is entitled to the cost of this petition and the litigation which he has unnecessarily been made to wage. The petition is, thus, allowed with costs assessed at Rs. 50,000/-.