- (1.) THE petitioner, a Co-operative Society, pressed under the circumstances as it is presently facing, has been constrained to come to this Court for the second time in a span of less than one year. The relief claimed in the petition is to direct the respondents to handover physical possession of the property belonging to the petitioner consequent upon the order de-requisitioning dated October 1, 1990 which was passed by the District Magistrate, Gurdaspur as also to appoint an arbitrator in terms of Section 8 (1) (b) of the Punjab Requisitioning and Acquisition of Immovable property Act, 1953 (here-in- after to be referred to as the Act of 1953 ).
(2.) BRIEF facts on which the relief mentioned above, rests, need to be enumerated first. It is pleaded that the petitioner society was constituted sometime in the year 1939 of the persons belonging to the so called ex-criminal tribes who were to be reformed and rehabilitated. A piece of land measuring 12 kanals and 12 marlas was purchased in the name of the Society and later 49 houses were constructed on the said land for its members and the colony was named as the 'hari Nagar Reclamation Colony, Pathankot. ' On July 31, 1976, District Magistrate, Gurdaspur issued notices to all the 49 owners of the houses in the said colony in Form-A under the Act of 1953 for requisitioning the property on the ground that the same was being used for immoral trafficking in women. It is pleaded that notice in Form-A sets out the public purpose for which the property is required to be requisitioned and affords an opportunity to the owner to show cause why it should not be requisitioned for the said purpose. No such notice was issued and yet the competent Authority issued a direction for allotment/transfer of the requisitioned property to some third persons vide order, annexure P-1, and the District Magistrate, Gurdaspur straight way directed that the houses, after requisition, be allotted to landless/houseless persons belonging to backward and weaker sections of the society. The allottees were to pay a meagre sum of Rs. 15/- per month as rent. It is further pleaded that it was wrongly stated in the orders that the property was lying vacant and had been abandoned by the owner and as a matter of fact the owners of the houses were forcibly ousted and possession thereof taken in an arbitrary manner. Against the high handedness of the authorities, it is pleaded, complaints were lodged before various authorities. Even though the rent initially fixed per house was Rs. 15/- per month but this meagre amount was further reduced to Rs. 5/- per month vide order dated March 13, 1987. It is pleaded that this amount was rediculously low and was received under protest. When a period of twelve years had gone by when the property was requisitioned under the Act of 1953 and no further orders were being passed so as to further requisition it or de-requisition it and when the property was not being used for the purpose it was requisitioned, the petitioner moved a petition before the District Magistrate, Gurdaspur on July 28, 1988 under Section 6 and 6-A of the Act of 1953 for the release of the property from requisition and for delivery of its vacant possession to the petitioner or in the alternative for its acquisition under the Land Acquisition Act. The matter remained pending before the District Magistrate for about two years where-after finding no solution to the matter, the petitioner was left with no choice but for to file a Civil Writ Petition No. 9861 of 1990 which came up for motion hearing before the Division Bench of this Court and vide orders dated July 25, 1990, respondent No. 2 was directed to decide the claim of the petitioner as made in its application by passing a speaking order in accordance with law within a period of four months. It is only then that respondent No. 2 moved in the matter and after going through the records and hearing the parties passed an order dated October 1, 1990 de-requisitioning the property and ordering further the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Pathankot to arrange to handover vacant possession of the property to the petitioner and also to arrange the payment of rent upto the date of delivery of the possession. While granting the relief as indicated above, the District Magistrate held that under Section 6 of the Act of 1953 the property so requisitioned for public purpose could be kept for five years and after the expiry of said period, the property had to be acquired or derequisitioned. A copy of the order aforesaid has been annexed with the petition as Annexure P-4. After the abovesaid order was passed by the High Court, the petitioner also moved an application before the District Magistrate, under Section 8 (1) (c) of the Act of 1953 for appointing an arbitrator to determine the recurring annual compensation payable to the petitioner for the requisitioned property. Even though the petition under Section 6 was decided in the manner indicated above, the one filed under Section 8 (1) (c) of the Act of 1953 was left undecided. There after, number of attempts were made by the petitioner to secure possession with the help of respondent No. 3 but no action Was taken for handing over the vacant possession. It is in these circumstances that the petitioner has come up once again in this Court asking for the relief which infact stands granted by the respondent No. 2 but, which in the facts and circumstances is only a paper relief as on the spot those, who were allotted the houses, continue to be in possession which is obviously at the cost of the petitioner. On the facts aforesaid it is pleaded that a legal duty is cast on respondent Nos. 2 and 3 to get the vacant possession of the property delivered to the petitioner forthwith as also to appoint an arbitrator in terms of Section 8 (1) (b) of the Act of 1953.
(3.) THE writ has been contested and the defence projected by the respondents is nothing but expressing complete helplessness in the matter. Before the defence as projected in the written statement is considered any further, it requires to be mentioned that those who are in possession having been allotted the houses on payment of monthly rent, moved Civil Misc. Application No. 595 of 1992 for impleading them as party-respondents but they withdrew the same on February 5, 1992. It also requires to be mentioned here that the motion bench while hearing the matter on February 5, 1992 observed, "an anomalous situation has been created by the act of the government in handing over possession of the requisitioned property of the petitioner to various other people. Now that order of the requisition no longer exists, it is clearly incumbent upon the government to hand back the requisitioned property with vacant possession thereof to its true owners. Mr. H. S. Riar, Addl. A. G. , Punjab, appearing for the respondents expresses his inability to give any definite date for handing back vacant possession of the property keeping in view the fact that it is in possession of other people who were allowed by the government to occupy it. Such being situation, the case is adjourned to enable the State Government to consider either acquisition of the property or else to take upon itself the responsibility of handing over vacant possession of this property by a definite date. " The matter was adjourned to enable the counsel appearing for the State to seek appropriate instructions in that behalf. However, on the adjourned date, counsel for the respondents sought further adjournment so as to obtain instructions but on the next date of hearing, the matter was admitted. It is obvious from the aforesaid narration of facts that even before the motion bench the respondents had expressed inability to hand over the vacant possession and that being the position, the motion bench was of clear view that it was incumbent upon the Government to either hand back the requisitioned propety and if it could not be done, the property even could be acquired.;