Punjab-Haryana High Court
Gurmail Singh And Other vs State Of Punjab And Others on 10 May, 2024
Author: Rajesh Bhardwaj
Bench: Rajesh Bhardwaj
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:066103
CWP-13819-2017 -1-
224 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CWP-13819-2017
Date of Decision: 10.05.2024
Gurmail Singh and others ..... Petitioners
Versus
State of Punjab and others ......Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BHARDWAJ
Present: Mr. Bhupender Ghai, Advocate, for the petitioners.
Mr. N.S. Diwana, Sr. DAG, Punjab.
Mr. G.S. Nagra, Advocate for
respondent No.4.
Rajesh Bhardwaj, J.
1. Prayer in the present petition is for quashing the order dated
16.01.2017 (Annexure P-1) passed by respondent No.1 vide which the
orders dated 25.02.1997 (Annexure P-4) and 06.11.2001 (Annexure P-5)
have been set aside and the land in dispute is ordered to be restored to
respondent No.4, which is illegal, erroneous, whimsical, against the
principles of natural justice and are passed in malafide exercise of powers
vested in the authorities i.e. respondent No.1 thereby causing miscarriage of
justice which has resulted into irreparable loss to the petitioners. Further
prayer has made to stay the operation of the impugned order Annexure P-1.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that
Tehsildar Sales-cum-Managing Officer i.e. respondent No.3 vide order
dated 24.02.1978 allotted area of land measuring 49 K 9 M to one Smt.
Radha Bai widow of Khushi Ram under the provisions of Section 12 of the
Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation), Act 1954 and issued
1 of 3
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:066103
Sanad in her favour. He submits that thereafter, the petitioners purchased
land measuring 19 K 4 M, out of said land from the allottee on 18.12.1979.
He has submitted that mutation was also sanctioned in favour of the
petitioners. It is submitted that thereafter, respondent No.4 filed a Civil Suit
challenging the said allotment, which was contested by the petitioners and
the same was dismissed by the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Fatehgarh
Sahib vide its judgment dated 25.02.1997. He submits that appeal against
the judgment dated 25.02.1997 was also dismissed by the Additional
District Judge, Fatehgarh Sahib vide order dated 06.11.2001. It is submitted
that respondent No.4 filed a petition under Section 4-B of the Punjab
Package Deal Properties Disposal Act, 2009 (for short, 'the Act')
impugning the orders dated 24.02.1978 and 04.06.1979 before respondent
No.1, who accepted the petition and set aside the orders dated 24.02.1978
and 04.06.1979, vide his impugned order dated 16.01.2017. Thus, he further
submits that the impugned order is totally illegal, arbitrary and without
jurisdiction and thus, deserves to be set aside.
3. At the outset, learned counsel for respondent No.4 has opposed
the present petition on the ground of its maintainability. He submits that the
impugned order has been passed under Section 4-D of the Act. He submits
that as per the provisions of this Act, the order impugned is appealable
under Section 4-E of the Act and thus, the present petition is not
maintainable as the petitioners has the remedy of appeal against the
impugned order.
4. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the
record and relevant statutes, it is apparent that Section 4-E of the Act
2 of 3
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:066103
provides remedy of appeal to the person who is aggrieved of the order
passed under Section 4-D of the Act on the application moved under
Section 4-B of the Act. Section 4-E of the Act reads as under:-
"4-E- Any person, aggrieved with the order of the Claims
Commissioners, passed under Section 4-D, may prefer an
appeal to the Financial Commissioner, Revenue within a period
of sixty days from the date of the order."
5. Thus, there is no gainsaying that impugned order has been
passed under Section 4-D of the Act, which is appealable under Section 4-E
of the Act. This Court is in agreement with the objection taken by learned
counsel for respondent No.4 regarding maintainability of the petition,
hence, the present petition is held to be not maintainable before this Court.
Thus, the present petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioners to
avail their remedy of appeal under Section 4-E of the Act.
6. Once the appeal is filed, on the point of limitation, the
Appellate authority would take into consideration the pendency of this
petition before this Court and deal with the same in accordance with Section
14 of the Limitation Act.
7. Disposed of as such.
(RAJESH BHARDWAJ)
10.05.2024 JUDGE
sharmila Whether Speaking/Reasoned : Yes/No
Whether Reportable : Yes/No
3 of 3
