RANI CHANDER KANTA (D) Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The judgment[1] of the High Court in second appeal[2] has been challenged before this Court in the present appeal. Vide the aforesaid judgment, the High Court[3] had upheld the judgment and decree[4] passed by the lower Appellate Court[5] and the judgment and decree[6] of the Trial Court[7] was reversed. The suit was filed by the appellants for declaration to the effect that the appellants/plaintiffs are in possession of the suit property as absolute owners.

(2.) Mr. Huzefa Ahmadi, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellants, submitted that Md. Yahya Khan, an evacuee was the owner of the entire property Spring Field, which comprised of Khasra Nos.233, 233/1, 233/3, 233/6, 233/7 and 234/4. Late Raja Dhian Singh was the Raja of Shiekhupura (now in Pakistan). He had taken the entire property including the buildings constructed thereon except Tarik Cottage and Coal Shed, measuring 10,500 sq. yards from Md. Yahya Khan on an annual rent of Rs.2500.00 in the name of his wife. He used the place as his holiday home, whenever he visited Shimla before partition of the country. After partition, Md. Yahya Khan migrated to Pakistan. The property in question became an evacuee property. It was to be administered in terms of the 1947 Act[8]. In terms thereof late Raja Dhian Singh became a temporary allottee of the said property on payment of an annual rent of Rs.2500.00 to the custodian. The rent was regularly paid. At the time of partition, even Raja Dhian Singh migrated to India. As he himself was a displaced person from West Pakistan, he was also entitled to benefits conferred on the displaced persons under various enactments including the 1950 Act[9] and 1954 Act[10]. The property in-question came in the compensation pool under Sec. 12 of the 1954 Act.

(3.) In September 1954, Rehabilitation Department through Regional Settlement Commissioner, Jullundur, invited tenders for sale of Spring Field described as property No.268/5. Vide the aforesaid tender, the entire evacuee property was put to sale. Raja Dhian Singh being in occupation of the said property was given first option to purchase the same vide letter dtd. 3/12/1954. Immediately thereafter, vide letter dtd. 10/12/1954, late Raja Dhian Singh gave his consent to purchase the property in-question, known as Spring Field for consideration of Rs.40,000.00. The sale was confirmed in his favour vide letter dtd. 17/12/1954. Letter of allotment dtd. 3/2/1955 was issued in favour of late Raja Dhian Singh regarding the property in question. It was also stated that the compensation due to him will be adjusted against the sale price. On 2/2/1957, Raja Dhian Singh expired. A fresh sale certificate was issued in favour of the legal heirs of Late-Raja Dhian Singh on 24/3/1976. After the aforesaid certificate, the appellants approached the revenue/municipal authorities for transfer of the property in their names. However, the municipal authorities raised objection stating that serial number and evacuee number were not in consonance with the land in their possession. The area and boundaries of the property had not been provided. Thereafter, the appellants approached the Chief Settlement Commissioner. Letter dtd. 28/3/1976 was issued by the Tax Superintendent, Municipal Corporation, Shimla stating that Spring Field comprised of 10,582 square yards. On 5/5/1976, another sale certificate was issued by the Department of Rehabilitation mentioning the area of the property as 2,786 square yards. Conveyance deed was also executed on 5/10/1977. Immediately thereafter, the appellants made representation for correction of the area, as mentioned in the conveyance deed and the sale certificate. The Chief Settlement Commissioner, treating the representation of the appellants as revision petition, passed an order dtd. 25/6/1979, in exercise of powers under Sec. 24(1) of the 1954 Act. It was held that the area sold to the appellants was 2,786 square yards, however, at the spot it was found as 3,836.06 square yards. The appellants were directed to pay cost of the additional area of 1,050.06 square yards @ Rs.4.00 per square yard, according to the reserved price. Review petition was filed by the appellants against order dtd. 25/6/1979. However, the appellants deposited a sum of Rs.4200.24 for the additional area without prejudice to their rights. On 21/8/1979, a fresh conveyance deed was executed in favour of the appellants with reference to the boundaries and the area mentioned in the sale certificate dtd. 5/5/1976 i.e. 3,836.06 square yards.