JETHOMAL Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks quashment of the Orders Annexure J and passed in revisions by Dy. Chief Settlement Commissioner and the Principal Secretary, Rehabilitation Department, Government of Madhya Pradesh, respectively. The petitioner further seeks direction to the respondents No. 1 to 4 to restore the order of joint allotment of House No. 3888 situated at Jaora, Distt. Ratlam, in favour of the petitioner and the respondent No.5.

(2.) THE petitioner's late father Harumal and respondent No. 5's late father Tikyomal both were displaced persons and they were allotted separate portions of house No. 3888 situated at Jaora, Distt. Ratlam which was the evacuee property, on tenancy basis, by the Government of India. Admittedly, the petitioner and the respondent No.5 are still in occupation of the said portions. Both Harumal and Tikyomal had left properties in Pakistan for which they preferred claims under the provisions of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation), Act, 1954 (for short, 'the Act'). During the process of finalisation of these claims the value of the portion occupied by Harumal was fixed at Rs. 3,140/ - while that of the portion occupied by Tikyomal was fixed at Rs. 2,410/ -. It appears that late Tikyomal had deposited Rs. 4,575.31 towards the price of the entire house under an order dated 15.2.58 of the Asstt. Settlement Commissioner. However, the Managing Officer issued a conveyance in respect of that portion of the said house only which was in possession of Tikyomal. It was further intimated by him that he should claim refund of the excess amount deducted from his compensation. Against this order of the Managing Officer the said Tikyomal preferred an appeal before the Asstt. Settlement Commissioner, Indore which was registered at No. 86/ASC(SC)/59. Late Harumal was impleaded as respondent in the case. This appeal was dismissed by the Asstt. Settlement Commissioner vide his order dated 6.1.60 (Annx. -I). It was inter alia held that since the said house is divisible in two parts, the appellant i.e., Tikyomal is entitled to have conveyance deed only in respect of the portion occupied by him while the other portion in occupation of Harumal is to be settled in latter's name. Against this order dated 6.1.60 passed in appeal, Tikyomal preferred revision u/s. 24 (1) of the Act which was registered at No. 51/Indore/32/ Appeals/60 and heard by Dy. Chief Settlement Commissioner and allowed by order dtd. 22.3.60 (Annexure -J). By this order, the appellate order (Annx. -I) dated 6.1.60 was set -aside and it was directed that the conveyance of the entire said house be granted to Tikyomal. Aggrieved by this order passed in revision, Harumal preferred a review petition which was registered as case No. 61/Ind/58/CEC/61 and was rejected by an order dated 26.9.61 (Annx. R -2). In the meantime, claim made by Tikyomal in respect of the properties left by him in Pakistan was allowed to the extent of Rs. 4576.31 and after adjusting this amount towards the total price Rs. 5,550/ - of the house in question, a demand for Rs. 973.63 was raised against him through a Memo dated 30.5.62. A copy of this Memo (Annex. R -3) was also endorsed to the petitioner's father Harumal asking him to obtain the refund of the deposit made by him in respect of the said house. However, Tikyomal died on 23.5.60. Some long correspondence went on between respondent No.5 and the authorities for obtaining conveyance in respect of the house. Eventually by a memo dated l7.5.87 (Annex. R -7) issued by Under Secretary (Rehabilitation) Government of India, Bhopal, the respondent No.5 was accepted as legal heir of late Tikyomal and finally deed of conveyance (Annx. R -9) was executed and registered in respondent's favour of by Tehsildar, Jaora, on 13.7.87.

(3.) I have heard Shri P.K. Saxena, learned Sr. Counsel appearing with Shri P.K. Jain for the petitioner and Shri S.D. Sanghi and Shri B.L. Pavecha, learned Sr. Counsel appearing with Shri Sunil Jain, for respondent No.5.