Man Singh vs Deputy Secretary … on 3 September, 2009

             LPA No. 315 of 2009 (O&M)                   1

             In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh.


                                            LPA No. 315 of 2009 (O&M)


                                            Date of Decision: 03.09.2009


Man Singh
                                                   ....Appellant.

               Versus

Deputy Secretary (Rehabilitation) and others
                                                   ....Respondents.


Coram:- Hon'ble Mr.Justice J.S. Khehar
        Hon'ble Mr. Justice S.D. Anand


Present: Mr. Ramesh Sharma, Advocate
         for the appellant.

                   ...

J.S. Khehar, J. (Oral).

For the reasons indicated in the application, delay in re-filing

the appeal is condoned.

Main order

During the course of hearing, learned counsel for the appellant

was confronted with the following observations recorded in the impugned

order/judgement dated 13.8.2008:-

“As fairly conceded by counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner

did not file an application for allotment of land in his

possession, whether in terms of press notes/instructions, issued

by the State of Punjab or in accordance with the provisions of

1976 Act or the rules framed thereunder. Thus, as the

petitioner did not press his claim for allotment, he had no locus
LPA No. 315 of 2009 (O&M) 2

standi to challenge the allotment of land to respondent No.4.

Respondent No.4 was allotted the land in dispute in satisfaction

of a verified claim, duly allowed to respondent No.4 under the

provisions of 1954 Act and the rules framed thereunder. Even

if it is to be accepted that allotment of land is to be made to a

cultivator in possession prior to the allotment to an unsatisfied

displaced persons, as the petitioner did not file any application

to press his claim for allotment, the authorities rightly allotted

the land to respondent No.4.

Learned counsel for the appellant very fairly acknowledges that the factual

position noticed in the extract reproduced hereinabove, is correct. He also

acknowledges that he had not moved any representation to the competent

authority for allotment of land within the period of limitation stipulated in

the instructions.

In view of the above, we find no infirmity in the impugned

order/judgement passed by the learned Single Judge.

Dismissed.

( J.S. Khehar )
Judge

( S.D. Anand )
Judge
03.09.2009
sk.