SITA DEVI Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The facts of this writ petition are that a double storeyed house bearing Municipal Nos. 375 to 379 an evacuee property of Teliwara, Shahdara was acquired under the Displaced Persons (Compensation & Rehabilitation) Act, 1954 (hereinafter the Act). It was in the occupation of eight persons:

(2.) Out of these occupants, Khem Singh and Kidar Nath were nonclaimants. The Managing Officer and the Valuation Officer recommended to the Assistant Settlement Commissioner that the property could be divided vertically into two equal portions, one, valued at Rs. 9832.00 and the other at Rs. 9208.00 portion No. 1 was in occupation of (1) Mehta Ram Kishan (2) Mohan Lal (3) (a) Ramji Dass and (b) Kidar Nath. Portion No. 2 was in occupation of (1) Arura Ram (2) Asa Singh (3) (a) Gyan Chand and (b) Khem Singh. All the occupants except two demanded its division into eight units but the Assistant Settlement Commissioner thought that such a division will only create slums and accepted the recommendation of the managing officer. Mehta Ram Kishan had a verified claim of Rs. 61)148.00 (against which he was entitled to a net compensation of about Rs. 12,300.00 Mohan Lal, one other occupant of this portion had a claim of Rs. 18,670.00 (against which he was entitled to a net compensation of about Rs. 3,800.00 ). The nearest being the compensation of Mr. Mehta, portion No. 1 was alloted to him. As respects the second portion, the varified claims of the occupants were as follows : Aruna Ram 'Rs. 3370.00 , Gian Ghand Rs. 5082.00 and Asa Singh Rs. 11,000.00 (against which he was entitled to a net compensation of about Rs.2100.00 ). So the second portion was allotted to him. This was done by the Assistant Settlement Commissioner by his order of March 10, 1960 under Rule 30 of the (Displaced Persons (Compensation & Rehabilitation) Rules, 1955 (herein the Rules.)

(3.) On March 17, 1960 the Government of India issued a circular that cases have come to its notice in which saleable properties have also been divided into independent portions with the result that portions so divided have become allottable. In no circumstances should a division of saleable properties be allowed Past Cases, however, may not be reopened.