SAJANDAS CHHATARAM HIRANANDANI Vs. MANAGING OFFICER/TAHASILDAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Original Petitioner, a displaced person having migrated from West Pakistan, filed his claim for grant of compensation in respect of the immovable properties left behind by him in West Pakistan since he became entitled to compensation payable to him under the provisions of Displaced Persons Compensation and Rehabilitation Act, 1954 (for short, 'the Displaced Persons Act'). The claim of the Original petitioner filed with Central Government was verified under the provisions of the Displaced Persons Act and as per the sanction then accorded, he become entitled to allotment of agricultural lands from compensation pool formed under section 12 of the Displaced Persons Act. The Central Government did allot agricultural lands to the Original Petitioner. In pursuance of the allotment issued, on 30th October, 1957, a Conveyance Deed/Sanad under Rule 68 of the Rules framed under the Displaced Persons Act was executed in favour of the Original Petitioner. The lands allotted to the Original Petitioner were described in the Schedule to the said Conveyance Deed/Sanad. The Original Petitioner was allotted lands admeasuring 12.5 standard acres at Villages Taloja Pachanand, Turubha and Nandgram of Taluka Panvel, District: Raigad (Kolaba).

(2.) RULE 58 of the said Rules requires handing over vacant and peaceful possession of the land to the person to whom the same is allotted. Though the Original Petitioner was allotted agricultural lands admeasuring 12.5 standard acres as aforesaid, he was put in possession of only 1/2 portion of the area allotted to him and the possession of balance 1/2 portion of the area allotted to him was not handed over to him. The Circle Inspector (Lands), Taloja has recorded in the certificate issued by him to the Original Petitioner that the Original Petitioner was put in possession of only 1/2 portion of the area allotted to him. A copy of such certificate issued on 6th December, 1965 is annexed as Exh.'E' to the petition.

(3.) THOUGH the Petition was filed on 26th October, 1987, and admitted on 20th June, 1988 when the Rule was granted and hearing expedited, no affidavit-in-reply to the Petition has so far been filed on behalf of either of the Respondents. The facts stated by the Petitioners in the Petition have neither been controverted nor denied by the Respondents. Even otherwise, from the papers on record, it appears that the fact involved in the case cannot be denied by the Respondents.