Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 1563 (PNJ)

Pushpa Rani v. Deputy Commissioner, Patiala

2012-11-02

RANJIT SINGH

body2012
JUDGMENT Mr. Ranjit Singh, J.: - A war widow is forced to approach the Court again to get an illegal condition as imposed removed from the allotment of land as ordered in her favour. Earlier she had to struggle to get the land allotted as per the promise made by the Government. This is not the manner in which Nation should pay a gratitude to the person who sacrificed his life for the Nation? Why there should be a need for war widow to approach the court for getting something which was promised by the Government due to extreme sacrifice made by the late husband of the petitioner. 2. Petitioner-Pushpa Rani is a war widow being wife of late L/N Ram Sarup, who died in Indo-Pak-War. Even after 40 years, she is still struggling to get what was promised by the Government. The petitioner was allotted land on 24.11.1977 in Village Khandali, Tehsil Rajpura, District Patiala by Tehsildar, Rajpura. But later on it revealed that the land was transferred to the occupants. The petitioner, accordingly, was compelled to approach this Court through CWP No. 16349 of 2006 for alternative allotment of land. On 04.09.2009, petitioner was allotted land measuring 80 kanals 0 marla in Village Chicharwal, Tehsil Patran, District Patiala. The petitioner was handed over possession on 31.10.2009. Conveyance Deed was issued in the name of the petitioner on 16.11.2009 and accordingly, CWP No. 16349 of 2006 was disposed of. 3. The petitioner subsequently submitted representation being aggrieved against condition contained in the Conveyance Deed dated 16.11.2009 where it is stipulated that the petitioner can not sell this land for 10 years from the date of allotment. This condition was contrary to Rules. Rules framed by the Punjab Government under the Punjab Package Deal Properties (Disposal) Rules, 1976 were amended in 1979. Despite reminders, no action has been taken. The petitioner had again been forced to approach this Court through present writ petition. 4. No reply in this case has been filed in response to notice of motion. Today, State counsel submits that the prayer only is to decide the representation which the petitioner has filed for deleting this clause contained in the Conveyance Deed which the respondent would decide. He pleads that the writ petition can be disposed of accordingly. 5. 4. No reply in this case has been filed in response to notice of motion. Today, State counsel submits that the prayer only is to decide the representation which the petitioner has filed for deleting this clause contained in the Conveyance Deed which the respondent would decide. He pleads that the writ petition can be disposed of accordingly. 5. It is noticed that the petitioner had to struggle to get an allotment of this land which was her right to which she was entitled on account of sacrifice made by her husband while participating in Indo-Pak-War. A war widow, in my view, deserve much more better respect than what is being shown by the State or its agencies. War widow cannot be treated as someone who is asking for some alms or favours. The Government on its own had decided to bestow this honour to the widows of those soldiers who had sacrificed their lives for the sake of Nation. If such war widows have to struggle to get allotment of land which is promised and then are forced to approach the Court again and again for one reason or the other to ensure reasonable and just treatment then it would rather be sad state of affairs which is in a bad taste. 6. The State has not even bothered to respond. The counsel representing the State rather is seen acting in a manner which may still leave the petitioner/war widow without any effective relief. Representation most likely would be rejected and it would leave the war widow without any relief. This move is made with obvious intent to avoid decision, which is bound to lead to another round of litigation. Some better attitude and response could be expected from the State and its counsel atleast in such like cases. Further intent became quite apparent when the State counsel opposed the order which was being passed while allowing the petitioner. The counsel opposed the same by saying that such a condition could be legally imposed. Why fake like this? If that is the stand, why ask for deciding the representation and invite other round of litigation. That perhaps is what ails our system. The counsel opposed the same by saying that such a condition could be legally imposed. Why fake like this? If that is the stand, why ask for deciding the representation and invite other round of litigation. That perhaps is what ails our system. It would, therefore, be appropriate to issue direction rather than leaving the matter to the State which may lead the petitioner again in the situation requiring her to approach the Court for deleting this condition from the conveyance deed. I am not inclined to grant further opportunity to State to file reply. The State has shown scant respect to the sacrifice made by husband of the petitioner. 7. Let us now consider if such a condition could be imposed in the conveyance deed. Clearly, the State has imposed this ban on the right of the petitioner to alienate this land, which is allotted to her by ignoring the rule position. The widows of the disabled soldiers killed in aggression were entitled to allotment of land upto 10 acres of cultivable land to be fixed by the State Government in terms of Rule 4 (i) of Part II of Punjab Package Deal Property Act, 1976. Rule 4.1 (v) did make a provision that no allottee shall be permitted to sell or alienate in any manner the land allotted to him or her before the expiry of a period of 10 years even if the full price has been paid. However, Rule 4 and sub rule (i) thereof have been deleted vide notification dated 20.1.1979 published in the Punjab Gazette dated 16.02.1979 and the clause (vi) has been renumbered as clause (v). Since the conveyance deed has been executed after the amendment of the rules, there would not be any legal force behind imposing this condition in the conveyance deed, the deletion of which the petitioner has prayed for. The State Government could be expected to be atleast clear about this aspect of the law even before imposing such condition. Rather, the imposing of this condition without any authority of law has resulted in harassment and unnecessary litigation by a war widow, which was clearly avoidable. Why should there be such a condition when the allotment is to recognise the sacrifice made by a soldier. This can not be equated with normal allotment etc. under the Act. 8. Accordingly, the prayer made in the petition deserves to be allowed. Why should there be such a condition when the allotment is to recognise the sacrifice made by a soldier. This can not be equated with normal allotment etc. under the Act. 8. Accordingly, the prayer made in the petition deserves to be allowed. The condition contained in the Conveyance Deed is ordered to be deleted herewith. The writ petition is allowed. Since the petitioner has been made to fight this uncalled for litigation, she is held entitled to costs, which is assessed Rs.10,000/-.