KUNDAN LAL Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Letters Patent Appeal raises the same perennial question of how to distinguish between an error within jurisdiction and an error outside jurisdiction which has defied any general answer and has to be considered on the facts of each case in the light of the law applicable thereto.

(2.) The Facts: The acquired evacuee property being house No. 111/395-396 (old), or VI/773/774 (new), Mehrauli, Delhi, is occupied by the appellant, Kundan Lal, as also by respondents 2 and 3, Moti Ram and his wife Rukmani Devi, in separate portions. The appellant, Kundan Lal occupies an area larger than the area occupied by respondents 2 and 3. The area held by the "appellant) Kundan Lal, is an "allotment" within the meaning of the definition given in Section 2(a) of the Administration of Evacuee Property Act, 1950, which definition has been made applicable to the Displaced Persons (Gom, pensation & Rehabilitation) Act, 1954, by Section 2(h) thereof. Smrirally, respondent No. 3, Rukmani Devi is the allottee of the portion of the house in which she lives with her husband, respondent No. 2, Moti Ram. The contrast between Moti Ram, on the one hand, and Kundan Lal and Rukmani Devi, on the other hand, is that Moti Ram holds a varified claim which is still not satisfied by way of payment of compensation, but is not an allottee, while Kundan Lal and Rukmani Devi are allottees, but are no longer claimants.

(3.) The property, being valued less than Rs. 10,000.00 , was "ordinarily" to be disposed of by allotment to displaced persons who are in occupation of the property. The allotment has to be made in accordance with Rules 30 & 31 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Rules, 1955, which are as below :