KURA Vs. DEPUTY CUSTODIAN GENERAL OF EVACUEE PROPERTY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The agricultural land in dispute belonged to two sets of Muslim owners, namely, (a) Ballu and others and (b) Nasiruddin, from before the partition of India. It is not known whether they migrated to Pakistan and if so, when or whether they died in India and if so, when. The petitioner and respondent 5 are found in possession of the said land. The property was treated as having automatically vested in the Custodian prior to 18th Outober, 1949 under Section 4 of the East Punjab Evacuees' (Administration of Pro- perty) Act, 1947 succeeded by the E. P. Ordinance IX of 1949 which were the only legal provisions under which such automatic vesting could occur. No proceedings for resuming possession or control of the said property were taken by the authorities under Sections 6 and 7 of the Act of 1947, On 1-2-1965 the Patwari of the village made a report that the owners of these fields had migrated to Pakistan 12-13 years ago and recommended that the land should be listed as evacuee property. Acting on the report, Shri Sant Lal. Naib Tahsildar (and Managing Officer acting under the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954) passed an order on 22-12-1967 that the property should be listed as evacuee property in the property register as having been detected as hidden evacuee property. Statements of the petitioner and others were recorded. The petitioner's counsel had argued that no property could be declared as evacuee property after 7th May, 1954. But this argument was repelled on the ground that this properly was automatically vested in the Custodian with effect from the date on which its owners left for Pakistan and it was admitted by the petitioner and others that the owners had left for Pakistan before 1954 and the property had been declared evacuee property in 1952-53 when its owners had left for Pakistan. The Settlement Officer passed another order on 27-3-1968 after hearing the petitioner and others and stated that the case of the petitioner that the owners had not migrated to Pakistan and that they died about a year ago (prior to 27-3-1968) had not been proved. The Tahsildar and Managing Officer also passed an order on 4th March, 1968 rejecting the application of the petitioner for the setting aside of the order dated 22-12-1967 for the sale of the property. Ultimately the petitioner filed a revision before the Custodian General under Section 27 of the Administration of Evacuee Property Act, 1950. This revision was dismissed by Shri Rajni Kant, Deputy Custodian General on 22nd May 1970. He treated the revision as being one against the automatic vesting of the land. He found that the petitioner has not made good his contention that the owners of the land died in India and that the petitioner was an heir of the said owner, for, the petitioner was stated to have admitted before the Tahsildar that one of the owners Nasiruddin migrated to Pakistan and the whereabouts of others was not known. Nevertheless, Shri Rajni Kant did not give any finding that the owners had migrated to Pakistan prior to 18th October, 1949 and therefore the property automatically vested in the Custodian,

(2.) In the present writ petition, it is asserted by the petitioner that he is an heir of the former owners of the land and that he has succeeded to the title of the land because the owners died in India during the riots at the time of the Partition of India. Petitioner also says that he is in possession of the land. He prays that the orders passed by the Deputy Custodian General and the Managing Officers referred to above be quashed inasmuch as the property had not automatically vested in the Custodian.

(3.) Respondents 1 to 4 the authorities whose orders are being questioned by the petitioner have not disputed that the petitioner is in possession of the land but stated that the possession is unauthorised inasmuch as he is not an heir of the owners of the land. They also asserted that the land automatically vested in the Custodian and, therefore, the impugned ciders were correct. Respondent 10 has also resisted the writ petition. He has purchased the land from Respondent 6 and the predecessors-in-title of Respondents 7 to 9 who had purchased the same from the Government. The Government had treated the land as being a part of the compensation pool under Section 12 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954 inasmuch as a notification issued thereunder had purported to acquire all the evacuee property. Since, it is contended by the respondents that the land in dispute was evacuee property due to its automatic vesting in the Custodian, the land became a part of the compensation pool when all the evacuee property was acquired by the Government and became a part of the compensation pool. Respondent 10 also did not deny that the petitioner was in possession of the property but denied the claim of the petitioner to the reliefs sought by him in the present writ petition.