I.D. Dua, J. - (1.) THESE two writ petitions (Civil Writ No. 841 of 1962 and Civil Writ No. 526 of 1963) have been heard together and indeed arguments have been addressed only in Civil Writ No. 841 of 1962, it being conceded that the other writ petition would stand or fall with this one. The facts out of which this writ petition has arisen have, so far as necessary for our purposes, been stated in the referring order of my learned brother and need only be briefly restated here.
(2.) NANAK Chand owned some agricultural land in Bahawalpur State now forming part of West Pakistan as a result of the partition of the country in 1947. He also owned some property at Kot Kapura, Tehsil Faridkot, which now forms part of District Bhatinda and is in India. Nanak Chand had in normal course of business come to Bhatinda where he died in June, 1947, leaving behind three sons by name, Om Prakash, Sat Narain and Ram Parshotam. After Nanak Chand's demise the country was partitioned and as a result thereof his three sons had to abandon the land owned by their father in Bahawalpur State. The three sons filed separate claims in accordance with law and obtained allotment of certain land in Kot Kapura village in lieu of the land abandoned by them in Pakistan. It appears that there was some complaint made by one Rur Singh against these three brothers which was inquired into by the Rehabilitation authorities and the Chief, Settlement Commissioner , Punjab, Shri J.M. Tandon, on 8th of June, 1962, came to a finding that Nanak Chand, although he had died long before the partition of the country must be treated as a 'displaced landholder' for the purpose of allotment of land on the ground that his name continued to be shown in the jamabandi as owner of the abandoned land in Pakistan. In consequence of this finding considerable area of land allotted to the three sons of Nanak Chand was cancelled. It is this order of cancellation which is 'being assailed by the three Petitioners (sons of Nanak Chand deceased) in the present writ proceedings and the challenge is based on the argument that para 17 of the Land Resettlement Manual by Tarlok Singh (hereinafter called the Manual) appearing at page 180 on the basis of which the order of cancellation had been passed has no authority of law and therefore, could not legally form the basis of the order and that in any case para 17 has been misconstrued and misinterpreted. Before my learned brother Harbans Singh, J., sitting sighly the Respondents' counsel relied on a decision by Chopra, J., in Jhanda Singh v. Chief Settlement Commissioner, Punjab ILR 1958 P&H 1090, in which para 17 of the Manual was given effect to. This decision has also been relied upon before us on behalf of the Respondents. It may here be stated that my learned brother entertained ' doubts about the correctness of the view expressed in this decision and it was for this reason that the matter has been placed before this Bench so that the correctness of the view expressed in Jhanda Singh's case, ILR (1958) P&H 1090 may be reconsidered. But for this decision my learned brother was inclined to allow the writ petition. The short question therefore, that we have to determine is the scope and binding effect of para 17 of the Manual appearing at page 180 in Chapter VIII.
(3.) THIS Manual is apparently published by the Punjab Government, but for this reason alone its contents do not acquire the authority or sanctity of law. It is not the Indian view of law that whatever is officially done is law; on the contrary the Indian Law is that what is done officially must be done in accordance with law. And then as stated in Foreword of the Manual by Shri P.N. Thapar this book contains the inetructies and explanations for working out policy decisions" arrived at in the course of the gigantic task of rehabilitating the persons displaced from what is now known as West Pakistan. It is true that in the appendices the relative legislative enactments and rules etc, are also reproduced but in the case before us it is not their binding effect but the binding effect only of para 17 at page 180 which has been canvassed. As observed by Jagannadhadas, J., in Amar Singh v. Custodian, Evacuee Property, Punjab : AIR 1957 SC 599. this Manual can be usefully referred to, not necessarily as an authority for every statement of fact or law contained therein but as a guide to appreciate the background of the problems which the administration had to face in the unprecedented situation, how those problems were attempted to be solved, what were the rules and practice which the administration normally followed and considered binding on itself, and what ideas inspired the course of legislation in this behalf. This view was expressed while explaining the observations that this book has the stamp of authority as made in Dunichand Hakim v. Deputy Commissioner, Karnal : AIR 1954 SC 150 : 1954 SCR 578.;