- (1.) This is an appeal against tin. ; judgment of the high court of Punjab in Civil Writ Application No. 1975 of '1963, decided on 18/12/1963. The petitioner was allotted 170 standard acres and 8 units of lands in village Vlallewald,tehsil Sirsa, District Hissar, in lieu of lands abandoned by him in five villages in Tehsil Depalpur, District montgomery. This was done oil his application as Mahant Gaddinashin of an institution known as "gaddi Kacha Pacca" in Tehsil Depalpur. According to him, he had re-established that institution in village Mallewala after the partition of India and was, therefore, entitled to get lands in lieu of lands which the institution had lost across the border. Later the Chief Settlement commissioner considered the entire matter and held that the la. nds could not have been allotted to the appellant in lieu of lands which belong to "gaddi kacha Pacca" presumably because the 'gaddi Kacha Pacca' was incapable of being moved to another place and established there. The Settlement commissioner in dealing with the matter observed that the institution was historical one and was, therefore, incapable of moving from a place in Pakistan to a place in India. The High court was moved by a writ. The Writ Petition failed and this appeal is the result.
(2.) In Samadh Parshotam Dass v. The Union of India and Others, (reported in 1962 PLR 1086) , The High court, had ruled that Samadhis were not capable of being moved from one place another and. therefore, no allotment, of land could lake place in lieu of lands lost across the border. That case came to this court by way of appeal and the decision of this court is reported in Civil appeal No. 358 of 1965. decided on 26th February, 196;). Although the appeal and the Writ Petitions were allowed to be withdrawn by this court. there is a clear statement of the fact that Samadhs were incapable of being shifted from one place to another and that, therefore, no allotment of land could take place.
(3.) It appears that the institution had lands in more; than one place one such being at village Kacha Pacce and the other in three different villages in. Which the name of the; Mahant was recorded as Muafidar. The case could have been argued in the High court that in respect of the lands which were recorded in his name as Muafidar, he was entitled to be rehabilitated by grant of lands in India. This plea, however, was not taken in the High court. and we may extract from High court judgement what exactly the case of the appellant was. The learned Judges in the High court observed: Following the above instructions' it was held in Samadh Parshotam Dass alias Jowand and. Sing v. The Union India and reported in 1962 PLR 1086 that in order to prove: that an institution had moved to India, under paragraph 34 of the Land Resettlement institution had to establish itself in East Punjab within a reasonable time. It was also held that the 303 samadhs were not entitled at all to the allotments as they were incapable of moving into India and that the allotments made in favour of the amadhs were rightly cancelled. In view of the above decision of a division bench of this court, the only ground which has been taken by Mr. Wasu at the time of argument is that this court should apply the Doctrine of Cypres and that even if. in institution is destroyed or otherwise it has become impossible to fulfil its objects the same institution may be set up at a new place and the property attached to the former institution should vest in the newly established institution. ";