KANIRAM LACHMAN GARI Vs. REGIONAL SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution submitted by the three petitioners for the issue of a writ of certiorari, prohibition and any other writ or direction against the Managing Officer Indore and Regional Settlement commissioner Indore for quashing the notices dated 27-11-1958 issued by the said Managing Officer against the petitioners on the ground, that the said notices had been issued contrary to law and also for the issue of a writ of prohibition requiring the said officer to desist from ejecting the petitioners otherwise than in due course of law.

(2.) THE case of the petitioners is that they were the tenants of a Muafidar of the village Piploda of erstwhile Jaora State, one Fariduddin. The said Fariduddin became an evacuee having mirgated to Pakistan as a result of the setting up of the two dominions India and Pakistan. The said Fariduddin was later declared an evacuee and his property, including the Muafi lands in the occupation of the petitioners as his tenants, as evacuee property. After the interest of the Maufidar fariduddin had vested in the Custodian the petitioner, it is said, paid rent to him till the issue of a notification by the Central Government in June 1955 under section 12 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act No. 44 of 1954 for the acquisition of the said property for the public purpose of rehabilitation of displaced persons and of paying compensation to them. The said property on the issue of the said notification formed part of the compensation pool and fell to be managed and disposed of by the Managing officer and the Regional Settlement Commissioner appointed under Section 16 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act. The petitioners consequently continued paying rent to the said Managing Officer, who is opponent no. 2, till 27-11-1958 when the said officer served the petitioners notices intimating to them that the lands in their respective Occupation had been allotted to certain displaced persons and that from the date of service of notices upon them they were ejected. The petitioners complain that this action of the Managing officer was contrary to the provisions of law since the petitioners enjoyed the status of lease-holders by reason of their being tenants of Muafidar Fariduddin and by their subsequent payment of rent first to the Custodian Evacuee Property and later to the said Managing Officer and that the only way in which this state of things could be put an end to was by following the procedure laid down in Section 19 of the said Act and the Rules made thereunder. This according to the petitioners was not done. The petitioners assert that under these circumstances the opponents or any of them had no right either to treat the lease as at an end or to treat the petitioners as having been ejected or to ask them to vacate. The petitioners however entertained reasonable apprehension that the opponents would physically eject them. They, therefore, seek the quashing of the said notices and the issue of an order asking the opponents not to eject them except in due course of law.

(3.) THE opponents in their return admitted almost all the facts alleged by the petitioners upto the stage of the issuing of the notices dated 27-11-58. These notices, it was asserted, were intended to give information to the petitioners that the said lands were required for rehabilitation purposes. There was no actual order for the eviction of the petitioners. The notices Were meant to give opportunity to the petitioners to have their say against their eviction. The petition was said to be premature for this reason. It was also contended by the opponents that the petitioners had a lawful remedy available to them under the Act by preferring appeal etc. They therefore could not invoke extra-ordinary jurisdiction of this court under Article 226 of the Constitution.