LexSTATE OF HARYANA & OTHERS versus PRADUMAN SINGH (D) BY LRS
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B c [2011] 2 S.C.R. 932 STATE OF HARYANA & OTHERS v. PRADUMAN SINGH (D) BY LRS (CIVIL APPEAL NO. 356 OF 2007) FEBRUARY 15, 2011 [MARKANDEY KAT JU AND GYAN SUDHA MISRA, JJ.] DISPLACED PERSONS (COMPENSATION AND REHABLITATION) ACT, 1954: s.20(1) (c) - Allotment of land to persons displaced as a result of partition of the country - Letter dated 21.6.1996 by State Government putting a stop to such allotments - Writ petition before High Court challenging the letter and for a 0 direction for allotment of land in lieu of that left in Pakistan - Direction by the High Court to allot 20 acres of land and deliver possession thereof to writ petitioner- Held: High Court could not have ordered for allotment of land without even directing an inquiry into the claim - Besides, the plea was a E pure question of fact which could not have been entertained straightway by the High Court - Further, High Court could not have ordered allotment and possession of land w.ithout quashing and setting aside the letter dated 21.6.1996 and without giving reasons for the same - If the writ petitioner had already been allotted land in 1952, this aspect was also F required to be examined before any order was passed in favour of writ petitioner - Order of High Court set aside - Constitution of India 1950 - Article 226. A writ petition was filed before the High Court by the G predecessor-in- interest of respondents, seeking to quash the letter dated 21.6.1996 issued by the Rehabilitation Department of the State Government containing a direction to stop allotment of land, and to direct the Tehsildar (Sales)-cum-Managing Officer to allot H 932 STATE OF HARYANA & ORS. v. PRADUMAN SINGH 933 (D) BY LRS him land in lieu of the land left by him in Pakistan. The A High Court directed the State authorities to allot the writ- petitioner 20 standard acres of land and to deliver him possession of the same. ·" Allowing the appeal filed by the State Government, 8 the Court HELD: 1.1 The Division Bench of the High Court could not have ordered for allotment and delivery of possession of 20 standard acres of land in lieu of the land, which the respondents claimed by way of C rehabilitation, without even directing an enquiry as to whether the predecessor-in-interest of the respondents in fact, had left 20 acres of land in Pakistan or not when they migrated to India. However, this plea was a pure question of fact which could not have been entertained D straightway by the High Court, nevertheless, when the petitioner himself had filed a writ petition in the High Court for quashing of the letter o"f instructions dated 21.6.1996 issued by appellant No.2 by which the allotment of land for rehabilitation had been ordered to E be stopped forthwith, the order for allotment and delivery of possession could not have been passed legally by the High Court without even quashing and setting aside the letter _dated 21.6.1996. [Para 5] [936-E-H] 1.2 It may be that the letter issued either by the State Government or by the Central Government cannot be given effect to in case it is contrary to the provisions of a statute, yet, consequential relief could not have been granted by the High Court to the writ petitioner/ respondents without even quashing the impugned letter and recording a finding and giving out reasons as to why the letter should not have been given effect to. However, without doing so, the consequential relief of allotment of land and the delivery of possession has been ordered • F H 934 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 2 S.C.R. A straightway which, smacks of arbitrariness. [para 7] [937- C-E] 2.1 If, however, the respondents have any other alternative remedy or forum to claim allotment of the land, 8 they obviously will have to first of all get the letter dated 21-6-996 quashed and set it aside. Unless the respondents succeed in doing so, no allotment of the land could have been made specially without any enquiry as to whether the predecessor-in-interest had left any land at all in Pakistan when he migrated to India. Besides, C the Court has been informed that the writ petitioner, the predecessor-in-interest of the respondents, had already been allotted land under the rehabilitation scheme way back in the year 1952 and, therefore, claim for allotment for the second time should not have been allowed by the D High Court contrary to the government instructions. This aspect was also requ
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.