LAWS(GJH)-1980-4-12

KARADIA JETHA KANA Vs. MANAGING OFFICER CUM COLLECTOR AND SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER CUM COLLECTOR JUNAGADH

Decided On April 02, 1980
KARADIA JETHA KANA Appellant
V/S
MANAGING OFFICER-CUM-COLLECTOR AND SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER-CUM-COLLECTOR,JUN Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two Letters Patent Appeals are directed against the common order recorded by Mr. Justice J. B. Mehta in Special Civil Application No. 952 of 1974 and Special Civil Application No. 1060 of 1974 The material facts in Letters Patent Appeal No. 160 of 1977 areas follows:

(2.) Survey Nos. 226 and 121/3 of village Lathodara in Mangrol Taluka of Junagadh District were received by the original petitioner from Aba Jusab and Osman Suleman in exchange of his lands. The deed of exchange was executed on 27/12/1950. It was registered. Aba Jusab and Osman Suleman migrated to Pakistan. Therefore declaration that the lands in question were evacuee properties was made. It appears that nothing happened thereafter. In January 1971 Mamlatdar of Mangrol deputed an officer to take possession of the lands in question because after holding an enquiry the Collector had allotted the lands in question to one Tikabai Motumal who migrated from Pakistan to India and who had made a claim for compensation in respect of the properties which were left by her in Pakis- tan. Revision applications against these allotment orders were filed before the Chief Settlement Commissioner under sec. 24 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act 1954 Both of them were rejected. Therefore the petitioners filed these two writ petitions challenging the orders made by the Chief Settlement Commissioner as well as the orders of allotment made by the Collector. The principal contention which was raised on behalf of the petitioners in the two petitions was that the lands in question belonged to them and that therefore they could not have been declared as evacuee properties. The learned single Judge who heard the petitions rejected the contentions raised on behalf of the petitioners and dismissed both the petitions.

(3.) Those orders are challenged by the original petitioners in these appeals under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent.