REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 356 OF 2007

State of Haryana & Others ..Appellants

versus

Praduman Singh (D) By Lrs. ..Respondents

J U D G M E N T

GYAN SUDHA MISRA, J.

This Appeal has been preferred by the State of Haryana  

against the judgment and order dated 13th July, 2000 passed  

by a Division Bench of the High Court in Civil Writ Petition  

No. 14050 of 1998, whereby the writ petition filed by the  

predecessor-in-interest  of  the  respondents  herein  was  

disposed  of  by  directing  the  respondent-State-appellant  

herein, to allot land to the extent of 20 standard acres  

under the rehabilitation scheme for displaced persons who  

claim to have been displaced after the partition of this  

country in the year 1947.   

2. The predecessor-in-interest of the respondents herein  

had filed a writ petition in the High Court of Punjab &  

Haryana at Chandigarh praying to issue a writ of certiorari  

for quashing the impugned letter dated 21.6.1996 (Annexure  

P/4  to  the  writ  petition)  issued  by  the  respondent  

No.2/appellant herein, i.e.,Joint Secretary to Government of

Haryana,  Rehabilitation  Department,  Chandigarh  which  

contained a decision/instruction of the State Government to  

-2-

the effect that the allotment of land for rehabilitation  

against such claim of land, should be stopped forthwith.  

The writ petitioner had further sought a writ of mandamus  

for a direction to the respondent No.3/appellant herein,  

i.e., Tehsildar (Sales)-cum-Managing Officer, Karnal to make  

allotment  of  land  in  lieu  of  the  land  left  by  the  

respondent-writ petitioner in Pakistan in exercise of his  

powers  under  Section  20  (1)  ©  of  the  Displaced  Persons  

(Compensation & Rehabilitation) Act, 1954 (for short 'the  

Act') and the rules made thereunder and to confer propriety  

rights upon the petitioner/respondents herein in respect of  

the land.

3. The learned Judges of the Division Bench, after hearing  

the parties concerned, were pleased to  practically allow  

the  writ  petition  with  costs  of  rupees  five  thousand,  

although the operative portion indicates that it was only  

disposed  of,  as  the  High  Court  directed  the  State  

authorities to allot land to the writ petitioner to the  

extent  of  20 standard  acres within  three months  and a  

further direction was also issued to deliver possession of  

the  land  to  the  writ  petitioner.  Curiously,  the  learned  

Judges of the Division Bench did not consider appropriate  

even  to  quash  the  letter  dated  21.6.1996  issued  by  the

appellant No.2 herein and yet were pleased to direct not  

only the allotment of land as per his claim but also a  

direction for delivery of the possession within three months  

to the writ petitioner/respondents herein.  The respondents  

-3-

in the writ petition/the appellant-State of Haryana herein,  

therefore, has preferred this appeal which was heard by us  

at length.

4. Mr.  Anoop  G.  Choudhari,  learned   counsel  for  the  

appellants-State of Haryana in substance contended that the  

High Court could not have issued a direction to the State to  

straightaway allot the land and at the most it could have  

directed the State authorities to consider the claim of the  

respondents  herein  for  allotment  of  the  land  under  the  

rehabilitation scheme.   

5. While,  we  find  sufficient   force  in  the  argument  

advanced, we are further of the view that the Division Bench  

of the High Court could not have ordered for allotment and  

delivery of possession of the land in lieu of the land which  

the  respondents  claimed  by  way  of  rehabilitation  for  20  

standard  acres  without  even  directing  an  enquiry  as  to  

whether  the  predecessor-in-interest  of  the  respondents  

herein, 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  

straightway  by  the  High  Court,  nevertheless,  when  the  

petitioner himself had filed  a writ petition in the High  

Court  for  quashing  of  the  letter  of  instructions  dated  

21.6.1996 issued by the appellant No.2 herein by which the  

allotment of land for rehabilitation had been ordered to be  

stopped forthwith, the order for allotment and delivery of  

possession could not have been passed legally by the High  

-4-

Court without even quashing and setting aside the letter  

dated 21.6.1996.

6. Learned  counsel  for  the  respondents,  however,  has  

sought to protect the interest of the respondents and hence  

submitted  that  the  letter  issued  by  the  appellant  No.2  

herein stopping the allotment of rehabilitation land was  

contrary  to  the  statute,  which  is  Displaced  Persons  

(Compensation & Rehabilitation) Act, 1954 and, therefore,  

the  letter  issued  by  the  appellant  No.2  herein  being  

contrary to the  provisions of the statute could not have  

been given effect to in order to negative the claim of the  

respondents herein.    

7. Learned counsel for the respondents-claimants although  

may be correct in submitting to the extent 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  herein  without  even  quashing  the  

impugned  letter  by  recording  a  finding  and  giving  out  

reasons as to why the letter should not have been given  

effect to.  However, when we perused the impugned judgment  

of the High Court, we did not find any reason even remotely  

in the impugned order for quashing and setting aside the  

letter dated 21.6.1996 issued by the appellant NO.2 herein,  

and yet the consequential relief of allotment of land and  

the delivery of possession has been ordered straightway  

-5-

which, in our opinion, smacks of arbitrariness.  

8. It  is,  therefore,  difficult  for  us  to  uphold  the  

impugned judgment and order of the Division Bench of the  

High Court and hence we quash and set aside the same.  If,  

however, the  writ petitioner, respondents herein, has/have  

any other alternative remedy or forum to claim allotment of  

the land, they obviously will have to first of all get the  

letter of the State Government quashed and set aside which  

has ordered stopping the allotment of rehabilitation land  

forthwith.  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  this,  learned  counsel  for  the  appellants-State  

further informed that the writ petitioner, predecessor-in-

interest of the respondents herein 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 High Court contrary to  

the  government  instructions.   We  find  force  in  this  

submission also, and, therefore, this aspect was required to  

be examined and enquired before any order was passed in  

favour of the respondents-claimants.

9. For the reasons given hereinabove, we allow this appeal  

and  set  aside  the  impugned  judgment  of  the  High  Court  

directing the State of Haryana to make allotment of the land  

in favour of the writ petitioner/respondents herein as also  

-6-

delivery of possession with cost of Rupees five thousand.  

However,  the  parties  herein  are  left  to  bear  their  own  

costs.

...........................J. [MARKANDEY KATJU]

NEW DELHI; ...........................J. FEBRUARY 15, 2011 [GYAN SUDHA MISRA]