TASNEMUL HAQ Vs. UOI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) On partition of the country in the year 1947, the appellant before us continued to reside in India, though some of his family members migrated to Pakistan. The Custodian of Evacuee Properties, acting under the Administration of Evacuee Properties Act, 1950, declared the appellant as well as his brother and sisters to be evacuees and consequently the properties held by them were declared as evacuee properties. On a representation submitted by the appellant to the Custodian General seeking restoration of his share in the said property, an order was passed by the Assistant Custodian on 18.3.1955, holding therein that the share of the appellant in the aforesaid properties could not be evacuee property. It was also declared that he had 1/3rd share in the land in question and such share was not an evacuee property. However, 1/3rd share of the appellant in the aforesaid could not be restored to him in view of the fact that the said land had been sold to third parties.

(2.) Vide Memorandum dated 27.1.1967, issued by the Assistant Custodian, Jalandhar, Punjab, the share of the appellant in the aforesaid land was sought to be changed from 1/3rd to 7/24th in the Jamanbandi sent by him. In order to compensate the appellant for his land which had been transferred to third parties, the land measuring 10 bighas in Village Lampur was allotted to him on 8.11.1978. The appellant, however, was not satisfied with the extent of land allotted to him and claimed that more land should have been allotted to him. He also claimed that he should be given land at the current market value and not on area to area basis. Thereupon, additional land measuring 17 bighas and 12 biswas was allotted to him over and above 10 bighas of land which had been allotted to him in Village Lampur. The appellant was asked to indicate the choice of the Village, where he wanted the additional land to be allotted to him. The appellant selected the land situated in Village Hamidpur, which was given to him on 19.6.1982.

(3.) The respondents contested the petition claiming that the share of the appellant in the land in question was wrongly stated to be 1/3rd in the order dated 1.3.1984, which was later corrected in the year 1967 and appropriate equivalent land was restored to him, on area to area basis. The learned Single Judge vide impugned order dated 19.3.2007 was of the view that though ordinarily the land of the appellant ought to have been restored to him, since he had accepted the alternative land, it was not open to him to say that such allotment of alternative land to him should be ignored and the original land belonging to him should be restored to him. It was also held by the learned Single that share of the appellant in the land in question was 1/3rd and not 7/24th.