I.S. Tiwana, J. - (1.) The petitioner applied on 26th Dec., 1962, to the Tehsildar (Sales), Kurukshetra, for the purchase of 96 kanals and 1 marla of land in village Pipli Majra, Tehsil Thanesar, District Kurukshetra, in terms of a press note issued by the State Government. The claim put forth was that he being an unauthorised occupant of the said land for a number of years or, in any way, before kharif 1960, was entitled to purchase the said land on that date at the rate of Rs. 675.00 per standard acre, i.e., the rate determined by the authorities for the transfer of such lands at that time. This plea of his, however, was declined by the Tehsildar (Sales). A petition against the said order before the Deputy Secretary, Rehabilitation-cum-Settlement Commissioner, Haryana, was dismissed on July 23, 1979 and his further revision before the Commissioner and Secretary to Government, Haryana, Rehabilitation Department, too was dismissed on Nov. 6, 1979. The petitioner impugned these orders through Civil Writ Petition No. 50 of 1980 which was allowed by this Court vide order dated April 8, 1980 (Annexure P. 2) with the following observations:- "During the course of arguments, the learned counsel for the parties are agreed that the application of the petitioner which was filed in 1962 for the transfer of the land should be reconsidered by the authority concerned and if the petitioner is able to satisfy the authority concerned that he was entitled to the transfer of the land on the date of application in accordance with the Press Note, in that case, the land shall be transferred to the petitioner, but if he is not found entitled to the same in accordance with the Press Note on the date of making the application, then his application for the transfer of the land will be rejected The parties have been directed through their counsel to appear before the Deputy Secretary (Rehabilitation)-cum-Settlement Commissioner, Haryana, Chandigarh, on 28th April, 1980, at 10.00 a. m. in his office."
(2.) As a result of this direction the Deputy Secretary (Rehabilitation) cum-Settlement Commissioner, Haryana, while upholding the entitlement of the petitioner to purchase the land in question vide his impugned order, dated Nov. 16, 1981 (Annexure P. 3), has directed him to pay the price prevalent on the date of the said order. Though this order of the Deputy Secretary was assailed before the Financial Commissioner and Revenue Secretary to the State Government through a revision petition yet the same was dismissed as not maintainable The petitioner now impugns the order of the Deputy Secretary (Annexure P. 3) on the ground that he completely misdirected himself when he ordered that the petitioner had to pay the price of the land prevalent on Nov. 16, 1981 and not the one on the date he made the application, i.e., Dec. 26, 1962. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties I find that the petitioner must succeed.
(3.) The solitary reason recorded by the Deputy Secretary in his impugned order for not permitting the petitioner to purchase the suit land at the rates in force on Dec. 26, 1962, is that he had no such vested right to purchase the land in question and the transfer of the land to him being a matter of benevolence on the Government, he is bound to pay the price as determined by the Government or the authorities concerned on the date he was passing the order, i.e., Nov. 16, 1981. This approach and conclusion of the Deputy Secretary appears to be wholly contrary to the repeated pronouncements of this Court holding that a person entitled to purchase land in his occupation in terms of a press note issued by the Government in exercise of its executive powers under Art. 162 of the Constitution, has a legal and enforceable right. See Bishan Singh and others Vs. Chief Settlement Commissioner, Punjab and others, 1973 RLR 222 and Din Dayal Vs. State of Haryana and others, 1976 PLJ 43. In the first case the learned Judges of the Division Bench made the following meaningful observations in this regard:- "35. Here, in the present case, the property belongs to the State Government and its disposal is not governed by any statute. The State Government, as owner of the property, is at liberty to formulate any policy decision and give effect to it by executive instructions as incorporated in the Press-Note. Shamsher Bahadur J. in Lajya Ram Kapur Vs. The Union of India and another, 1963 P.L.R 674, brought out this distinction clearly and observed that after the transfer of the property to the State Government its disposal was no longer governed by the Rehabilitation Act, and that section 27 or 36 of the Rehabilitation Act, which barred a suit to challenge any order of the Authorities under that Act, was no bar to the institution of a suit and that a suit to enforce the decision contained in the Press note of 1962 was not barred. It is thus clear that the persons falling in the categories covered by the Press-note of 1962 have an enforceable legal right. 36. There is another way of looking at the matter. The property transferred by the Central Government, under the 'Package Deal', belongs to the State Government and under Constitution, it is empowered to legislate, in regard to its disposal. Under Art. 162 of the Constitution, the State Government, till such time, as it undertakes such a legislation, can provide for the same matter, by issuing executive instructions. Rules and instructions of 1962, made by the State Government, for the disposal of the property acquired under the 'Package Deal', would squarely fall under executive Instructions, covered by Art. 162 and would to that extent be, directions issued under that Art. and so long as these directions are not withdrawn or modified, it cannot be said that a person covered by the same, would not be entitled to enforce the rights given to him by such instructions." Further that too was a case which related to the press note of the year 1962 under which the petitioner is claiming his right. In the light of the above noted settled legal position, the observation or the conclusion of the Deputy Secretary in the impugned order that the petitioner had no enforceable right to acquire the land by way of purchase has thus to be set aside. Once it is held that the petitioner had such an enforceable right on the date he made the application, i.e., Dec. 26, 1962, then obviously his right to purchase has to be determined on that date and he could only be made to pay the price determined by the authorities concerned for the transfer of the land on that date.;