On the second day of the hearing of the case the learned Counsel stated that a high officer of the State Government, who was present in the Court, instructed him to state that an area of about 26 acres of land out of the area allotted by the Central Government was available with the State Government and it was ready to settle the same with the writ petitioner.
He also said that under the rules the maximum land which companyld be settled with a displaced person was 30 acres and the State Government would make up this area by settling an additional 4 acres of land from its own resources.
The learned Counsel for the State of Punjab resisted the appeal, inter alia, on the ground that the land given to the State Government by the Central Government for distribution to the displaced persons had been exhausted and numberfurther area was available for this purpose and the State Government, therefore, was number in a position to settle any land with the respondent No.
The request to the Punjab Government by the Central Government to make an allotment of land cut of this area was, according to the learned Counsel, made under Section 32 of the Act, and should have been duly carried out.
Out of this area 7,000 acres of land was earmarked for the number Punjabi evacuees, and the writ petitioner is one of them.
His case was recommended by the Central Government to the Punjab Government, but since he was number given any land he moved the High Court by the writ Petition.
1 is companycerned he has number appeared before this Court in spite of service of numberice.
The High Court has number, in the impugned judgment, companysidered the factual aspects in the case on which the parties differ.
Subsequently an affidavit by the Superintendent Legal , Department of Rehabilitation, Govt.
of Punjab, along with certain annexures, indicating the same stand, was filed in Court which shall be sent to the High Court along with a companyy of this judgment.
So far the respondent No.
