SMT. ASGARI BEGUM Vs. LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The writ petitioner insists that the husband of her deceased daughter would not be a descendent of the petitioner's husband within the meaning of that word in the policy of 2003 by which excess land in possession of pre-1942 settlers were to be regularised if such excess land continued to be in the occupation of such settlers or their descendants.

(2.) The two conditions of the relevant memorandum of July 15, 2003 spell out that the regularisation would be to the extent that the concerned occupants and their descendants maintained their continued possession; and, that regularisation would be carried out after the Administration completed a survey to identify the pre-1942 settlers, their descendants and the exact area of excess land in their possession upto 1961.

(3.) It is not in dispute that the predecessor-in-interest of the writ petitioner, her husband, was entitled to the benefit under the regularisation scheme. The petitioner's husband died in the year 1990. At the time of the death of the petitioner's husband, he was survived by his widow and two daughters. Of the two daughters of the petitioner, the wife of the seventh respondent son-in-law expired in or about the year 2000.