PURAN LAL Vs. D SUJATHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two appeals arise out of a common judgment in W.P. Nos.l 1814 and 11816 of 1994 and hence are disposed of by this common judgment.

(2.) The facts relating to the cases appear in detail in the judgment under appeal and hence need not be reiterated here at length. These appeals have been preferred by the appellant with the permission granted to prefer the appeals as he was not a party to the writ petitions. The main question urged in the appeals is that though the appellant in both the appeals was the person at whose instance the impugned notice dated 10-7-1984 was issued to the respondent No.1 in the two appeals, yet he was neither impleaded as party-respondent to the writ petitions nor notice was issued by the High Court and the cases were disposed in his absence, by which he is prejudiced.It is his case that on 20-5-1965 he had been allotted the premises bearing No.9/369 comprising of an area of 939.52 square yards; that the allottee of premises No.9368, which has only an area of 896.51 square yards, wrongfully alienated larger protions of land which actually apertain to his allotted premises as a consequence of which he could be sold on 24-7-1981 only 505.94 square yards. He has been agitating the question about the illegal sale of his allotted premises in pursuance of which the impugned notices in the writ petitions were issued on 10-7-1984, but that the 1st respondent got the notices quashed without impleading him as a party to the writ petitions.

(3.) The only question that substantially arose in the writ petitions is the competence of the custodian of the evacuee property to issue notices under Section 8(4) of the Administration of Evacuee Property Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as 'the 1950 Act'). It is urged by the resondent that since prima facie the notices were incompetent, the 1st respondent was entitled to come before this Court to get the notices quashed and that no interest of the appellant is affected thereby. It is the submission of the learned Counsel that admittedly both the premises bearing Nos.9/368 and 9/369 were declared under Sec. 12 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as 'the 1954 Act'), the result of which is to vest the property, free from all encumbrances, absolutely in the Central Government and that when such notification is published, the property ceased to be governed under the 1950 Act That being so, the notices issued under Sec. 8(4) of 1950 Act were incompetent, which conclusion was reached by the learned single Judge in the judgment under appeal. In support of the proposition reliance is placed on Basant Ram vs. Union of India which clearly answers the question in favour of the respondent No.l. The fact that the properties were declared under Section 12 of the 1954 Act is conceded to by Mr. K. Pratap Reddy appearing for me appellant. Hence without question, both the properties Nos.9 /368 and 9 /369 went out of the purview of 1950 Act and consequently out of the jurisdiction of the custodian under the 1950 Act and the notices could not have been issued by him under Section 8(4) of the Act directing the respondents to surrender possession of the land purportedly in their unauthorised possesion. To that extent the conclusion reached by the learned Judge is unexceptionable and the presence or otherwise of the appellant in the writ petitions could in no way affect the result of the case so far as quashing of me notices are concerned.