BANARSI DASS SHARMA Vs. CHIEF SALES COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SH . Banarsi Dass claiming to be partner of M/s Raj Saw Mills, College Road, Pathankot Road, Gurdaspur has filed this petition under Section 33 of the Displaced Persons (C & R) Act, 1954 against the order dated 25.11.1992 passed by Chief Sales Commissioner, Gurdaspur whereby he dismissed the revision petition of the partners against the ex-parte order dated 30.10.1990 passed by the Sales Commissioner, Pathankot whereby the land measuring 4 Kanals 1 Marla situated in Chak Sarai, Pathankot in the name of Vishnu Dutt, respondent was transferred.

(2.) AS per the allegations made by the petitioner, M/s Raj Saw Mills is a firm of three partners namely Banarsi Dass Sharma, Vishnu Dutt Sharma and Lekh Raj sons of Amar Nath. The Urban Agricultural Land measuring 34 kanals comprised in khasra No. 444/36, 55, 56 situated in the revenue estate of Chak Sarai, Pathankot was evacuee property. Out of the said land Raj Saw Mills took 4K-1M of land comprised in khasra No. 444/36 on rent from M/s Pathankot Bajri and Stone Company Pathankot and established a saw mill in the year 1960 believing that M/s Pathankot Bajri and Stone Company Pathankot was the owner of the land though in fact it was an evacuee property. The partners of the firm M/s Raj Saw Mills discovered that the property in their possession was evacuee property, and the firm staked its claim for its transfer with the Rehabilitation Department on the basis of its possession. The firm M/s Pathankot Bajri and Stone Company also staked its claim on the said land. The matter ultimately went to the court of Financial Commissioner Revenue, Punjab who exercising the powers of Central Govt. under Section 33 of the Displaced Persons (C and R) Act, 1954, came to the conclusion while passing his order dated 24.7.75 that the Pathankot Bajri and Stone Company was an unauthorised occupant and remanded the case for fresh decision. The learned Financial Commissioner also ruled that the land in dispute was in possession of the firm M/s Raj Saw Mills, but it could by no means be transferred in the name of Vishnu Dutt who claimed to be a partner and Manager of the firm. Aggrieved by the said order of Financial Commissioner the firm M/s Raj Saw Mills filed a Writ Petition No. 7416/75 through its partner and Manager Vishnu Dutt Sharma but the same was dismissed as withdrawn by order dated 2.3.83.

(3.) WHEN the petitioner came to know regarding the impugned order and the conveyance deed, he moved an application to Tehsildar Mahal-cum-Sales, Pathankot on 26.3.92 praying for cancellation of allotment/conveyance deed in the name of Vishnu Dutt respondent as proprietor of M/s Raj Saw Mills on the ground that Vishnu Dutt respondent was not the proprietor of the firm but merely one of its partners. The Tehsildar Sales by virtue of his note dated 27.3.92 recommended to the Sales Commissioner for permission to substitute the name of Raj Saw Mills, but the Sales Commissioner vide his order dated 20.7.92 declined permission by recording that the application was time barred and there was no need to review as Banarsi Dass petitioner had never come in the picture till the decision of the case.