RAM PARSHAD Vs. APPELLATE OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Ram Parshad petitioner has filed this writ petition against the order of the Appellate Officer dated 21st April, 1964 by which he has reversed the order of the Competent Officer under the Evacuee Interest (Separation) Act 64 of 1951 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) dated 29th February, 1964 and the Appellate Officer has finally ordered the transfer of the property in dispute to the displaced allottees, namely, Rup Narain and Ram Dass who are respectively respondents 4 and 5 in this petition.

(2.) The dispute between the parties relates to a two storeyed house bearing No. VII/1447 (old) and 1987 (new) Gali Mirdan Lal Kuan. Delhi. It was owned by Muslims, some of whom migrated to Pakistan, and 731/1 pies in a rupee was the evacuee's share while the remaining 1180/1 pies in a rupee belonged to the non-evacuees who are respondents or legal representatives of respondents Nos. 6, 7, 8 and 9 in the present writ petition. It appears that the petitioner Ram Parshad was a tenant in the ground-floor of the said property and respondents Nos. 4 and 5 were tenants in respect of the first floor of the said property under the Muslim evacuees. However, in the year 1949-50, the Custodian recognised their tenancy and made allotments of the respective premises in their favour. The petitioner is not a displaced person while respondents 4 and 5 are displaced persons and they claimed that the property in dispute should have been transferred to them under the Act.

(3.) On 30th November, 1962, the interest of the evacuees and non-evacuees was determined by the Competent Officer and the value of the property was fixed at Rs, 12,849.00. On 3rd April, 1963, the property was offered to the non-evacuee co-sharers for purchase in accordance with the rules, but they did nut purchase the same and so on 17th April, 1963 (vide Annexure R-5) it was ordered to be sold by public auction. On 17th July, 1963, the Competent Officer also rejected an application of Rup Narain, Respondent No. 4, the sitting allottee, for transfer of the property to him. Eventually on 21st August, 1963, the property was put to auction and sold to Gopal Das for Rs. 12,500.00 but on the application of the petitioner before me and on his offering a higher price, of Rs. 14000.00 the said sale was cancelled on 9th September, 1963 and the property was directed to be re-sold. Aggrieved by aforesaid orders dated 27th April, 1963 and 17th July, 1963, Rup Narain and Ram Dass filed appeals before the Appellate Officer. These appeals were allowed by Shri Parshotam Sarup, Appellate Officer by order dated 11th November, 1963 (Annexure 'A') and he held that the property could not be put to auction and must be transferred to the sitting allottees at the assessed price and he remanded the case to the Competent Officer for further action to offer it to the sitting allottees. In pursuance of the said order, the matter was considered again by the same Competent Officer and he by order dated 29th February, 1964 held that the petitioner was not a displaced person and that respondents 4 and 5, although displaced persons, were not sitting allottees and so were not entitled to the transfer of the property in their favour. He found that a part of the first floor in the occupation of Ram Dass had become uninhabitable and was pulled down by the Municipal Committee and that Ram Dass temporarily shifted to another house, but came back to live in a portion of Rup Narain, respondent No. 4 and that Rup Narain had been allotted a railway quarter to which he had shifted but he contended that he was still in possession of the premises in dispute. Aggrieved by this order, resondents Nos. 4 and 5 herein filed an appeal. The Appellate Officer by order dated 21st April, 1964 held that in his previous order dated llth November, 1963, he had directed the transfer of the property to respondents 4 and 5 and the Competent Officer ought to have complied with the said direction rather than sit in judgment over his order and arrive at a different finding. On the merits of the case, he has reversed the finding of the Competent Officer and held that respondents 4 and 5 were sitting allottees and their allotments had not been cancelled or terminated according to any provision of law and they were entitled to have transfer of the property.