STATE OF HARYANA & OTHERSversusPRADUMAN SINGH (D) BY LRS

                        [2011] 2 S.C.R. 932


A                STATE OF HARYANA & OTHERS
                              v.
                 PRADUMAN SINGH (D) BY LRS
                (CIVIL APPEAL NO. 356 OF 2007)
                        FEBRUARY 15, 2011
B
    [MARKANDEY KATJU AND GYAN SUDHA MISRA, JJ.]

       DISPLACED PERSONS (COMPENSATION AND
    REHABLITATION) ACT, 1954:
c
       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
                                                                F
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
             •                                                  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,
  they obviously will have to first of all get the letter dated
8
  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 required to be examined and enquired
  before any order was passed in favour of the
  respondents-claimants. [Para 7 and 8] [937-F-G-H; 938-A-
  B]
E
       2.2 The impugned judgment of the High Court
   directing the State of Haryana to make allotment of the
   land in favour of the writ petitioner as also delivery of
   possession is set aside. [para 9] [938-C-D]
F        CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 356
    of 2007.
      From the Judgment & Order dated 13.07.2000 of the High
  Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh in C.W.P. No. 14050
G of 1998.
         Anoop G. Chaudhari, Manjit Singh, AAG, Harikesh Singh
    (for Kamal Mohan Gupta) for the Appellants.
      Jasbir Singh Malik, Ekta Kadian, Devender Kumar
H Sharma (for S.K. Sabharwal) Meenakshi Grover, Sanjeeb
STATE OF HARYANA & ORS. v. PRADUMAN SINGH 935
                (D) BY LRS

Panigrahi, Siddhartha Chowdhury for the Respondents.                A

    The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

     GYAN SUDHA MISRA, J. 1. 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       B
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               C
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 D
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 E
of the State Government to 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, Kamal to F
make allotment of land in lieu of the land left by the responQ_ent-
writ petitioner in Pakistan in exercise of his powers un'der
Section 20 (1) ) of the Displaced Persons (Cornpe~sation &
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.                          G
     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    H
    936     SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [2011] 2 S.C.R.

A 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
B 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 in the writ petition/the
c 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
D 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.

E      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 stanpard acres without
F 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
G 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 Court without even quashing
H
    STATE OF HARYANA & ORS. v. PRADUMAN SINGH 937
          (D) BY LRS [GYAN SUDHA MISRA, J.]

    and setting aside the letter dated 21.6.1996.                        A
         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    B
    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.
                                                                         c
          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          D
    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             E
    reason even remotely in the impugned order for quashing and
    setting aside the letter dated 21.6.1996 issued by the appellant
    N0.2 herein, and yet the consequential relief of allotment of land
    and the delivery of possession has been ordered straightway
    which, in our opinion, smacks of arbitrariness.                      F

          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       G
    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                 H
   938      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [2011] 2 S.C.R.


A 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
s in the year 1952 and, therefore, claim for allotment for t.he
  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
c 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 delivery
D of possession with cost of Rupees five thousand. However, the
  parties herein are left to bear their own costs.
    R.P.                                          Appeal allowed.