JUDGMENT
S.N. Aggarwal, J.
1. The petitioners allege that their father Kesar Singh was the land holder in village Deh Sanghi, Tehsil Nawabshah (now in West Pakistan). After partition, said Kesar Singh migrated to India. He was allotted 4 standard acres and 8 units of land in village Sewan, District Kaithal. Kesar Singh remained in possession of this land for a period of 3 to 4 years. However, allotment in favour of Kesar Singh was cancelled by the respondents on the basis of wrong revenue record received from Pakistan. Representation was made by Kesar Singh on which his allotment was restored. Said Kesar Singh tried to obtain correct revenue record from Pakistan but he could not succeed on which respondent No. 3 cancelled the entire allotment vide order dated 15.9.1960. Under the policy decision taken by the State of Punjab, all the occupants of the land who were in continuous possession prior to Kharif, 1960 were entitled to purchase 5 standard acres of land at reserve price. However, Tehsildar Sales vide notice dated 6.8.1967 directed Kesar Singh to purchase land upto 5 standard acres at the current market price instead of reserve price. This notice was illegal. Revision petition filed by Kesar Singh was also dismissed by the then Authorised Chief Settlement Commissioner on 19.2.1968. The Secretary, Ministry of Rehabilitation, Government of India also rejected the appeal/representation on 9.1.1969 on which Kesar Singh filed Civil Writ Petition No. 958 of 1969.
2. The said writ petition was accepted by this Court vide order dated 14.7.1981. Letters Patent Appeal No. 1040 of 1981 was also dismissed by this Court vide order dated 26.11.1994. However, order passed by this Court dated 14.7.1981 was not complied with by the respondents on which the petitioners filed COCP No. 517 of 1991 but with no result.
3. Hence, the present writ petition was filed by the petitioners with the prayer that direction given by this Court on 14.7.1981 in Civil Writ Petition No. 958 of 1969 be got implemented.
4. This submission has been considered.
5. The operative part of the order dated 14.7.1981 passed in Civil Writ Petition No. 958 of 1969 reads as under:
It is not necessary to go into the matter in detail as it is fully covered by the decision of this Court in Civil Writ No. 1782 of 1968 (Sewa Ram v. The Chief Settlement Commissioner, Haryana at Jullundur and Anr.) decided by I.S. Tiwana, J. on 14th May, 1980. The facts of that case are similar to those of this case. In view of the aforesaid judgment, I accept the writ petition, quash the impugned orders and hold that the petitioners are entitled to purchase an area upto five Standard Acres in terms of the instructions of the Government dated 12th March, 1963 (copy Annexure ‘A’) and subsequent instructions issued from time to time in this regard. No order as to costs.
6. Therefore, this Court had observed that the petitioners were entitled to purchase an area upto 5 standard acres in terms of the instructions of the Government dated 12.3.1963 and subsequent instructions issued from time to time in this regard. The petitioners have failed to place on record any document to prove if they had approached the respondents for the purchase of land upto 5 standard acres in accordance with the instructions dated 12.3.1963 or instructions issued thereafter. Instructions dated 12.3.1963 are placed on the file as Annexure P-1. As per those instructions, only unauthorised occupants of unallotted lands who were in continuous possession of lands since Kharif,1960 were entitled to apply. It is no where proved by the petitioners if they fulfilled this condition or if they had applied to the respondents in pursuance of these instructions.
7. The learned State counsel also submitted that subsequent instructions were issued by the respondents on 1.11.2001 (Annexure R- 2) and as per these instructions, all the applications which were filed earlier stood rejected and the applicants were to apply afresh. It was mentioned in clause 6, internal page 21 of the instructions dated 1.11.2001 that the previous applications stood rejected but the applicants shall have option to make fresh applications under this scheme. It is no where pleaded or proved by the petitioners that they had applied in accordance with these instructions.
8. This Court vide order dated 14.7.1981 had only directed that the petitioners would be entitled to purchase 5 standard acres of land in accordance with instructions dated 12.3.1963 and subsequent instructions. As pointed out by the learned State counsel, the previous applications stood rejected and the petitioners were to apply afresh but they failed to do so. Therefore, the judgment dated 14.7.1981 in Civil Writ Petition No. 958 of 1969 is of no avail to the petitioners. Since the petitioners have failed to comply with the Court order dated 14.7.1981 and they have also failed to comply with the instructions issued by the respondents from time to time, therefore, the petitioners have failed to make out any case against the respondents.
9. There is no merit in the present writ petition and the same is dismissed.