SAUDAGAR SINGH Vs. ASSTT CUSTODIAN GENERAL, JULLUNDUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner Saudagar Singh seeks issuance of writ in the nature of certiorari so as to quash the order, Annexure P-2, passed by the Assistant Custodian General exercising the powers of Custodian General, Punjab, dated May 7, 1980, vide which his revision, filed under Section 27 of the Administration of evacuee Property Act, 1950 was dismissed.

(2.) In brief, the facts, as pleaded in the petition and made out from report (Annexure P-1), and order (Annexure P-2) reveal that one Sardar son of Chanda, Muslim, resident of Village Missarpura, Tehsil Batala, was owner of 1/8th share in agricultural land comprised in Khasra numbers enumerated para 5 of the petition, and that the petitioner had purchased that land from him, which was to the extent of 1/8th share of the total land, July 10, 1947 vide a registered sale deed. Sardar vendor of the petitioner, on partition of the country, migrated to an area now falling in Pakistan. In consolidation proceedings the land came to be comprised in different Khasra numbers, as mentioned in para 5 of the petition as per jamabandi for the year 1973-74. The petitioner was not allotted 1/8th share of the total land purchased by him from the owner and instead the same was allotted to respondent Nos. 3 and 4, who were displaced persons having migrated from Pakistan as obviously the property in question was treated to be evacuee property. The petitioner filed a revision petition under Section 27 of the Administration of Evacuee Property Act, 1950, on September 2, 1979, praying therein that 1/8th share of the land in dispute was owned by him as he had purchased it from the owner, who was a Muslim and the allottees had not succeeded to any right, title or interest as the same had since already been sold to him. It was further made out by him in the aforesaid petitioner that after purchasing the land, he entered into its possession and the allotment made in favour of respondents 3 and 4 was wholly illegal. A report was called from the Assistant Custodian, Punjab, by the Custodian General, Punjab and in the report, that is Annexure P-1 dated 15.12.1979, it is recorded that even though the transaction through registered sale-deed ever came to be recorded or got incorporated by the petitioner in the revenue records. It is also mentioned that the petitioner had filed a civil suit claiming the same property on the very ground, as pleaded in the petition, through a decree of declaration, but the suit was dismissed on August 23, 1979. It is also that even though he had purchased 1/8th share of the land from Muslim owner, but the mutation could not be got entered into revenue records, with the result the land continued to be shown as evacuee property. On receipt of the report aforesaid, the Custodian General, Punjab, dismissed the revision filed by the petitioner vide order dated May 7, 1980 (Annexure P-2).

(3.) This petition has been opposed by the respondents and by way of preliminary objection, it is averred that allottees Sarvshri Bhagwan Singh and Jarnail Singh are in possession of the land in dispute and having been allotted the land in dispute, they ought to have been impleaded as respondents in the non-joinder of necessary parties. It is also made out that one Smt. Jiwan Kaur (respondent No. 3) had sold the area, allotted to her, to one Gurdial Singh, who too had not been arrayed as one of the respondents in the Chanda, a Muslim evacuee had 1/11th share in the land in dispute, the petitioner had purchased 1/8th share, which was represented to be a share of Sardar son of Chanda and in this manner, the owner had sold the land more than his share. In so far as the question of possession is concerned, it has been pleaded that the petitioner never took possession of the land, purchased by him vide sale-deed dated June 10, 1947 and even otherwise, he could not take possession of specific area because no particular khasra number had been sold by Sardar evacuee. Besides, contesting the main plea of the petitioner with regard to the allotment being illegal, it is also made out that the civil suit filed by the petitioner was dismissed on merits and for far as issue of jurisdiction is concerned, the same was returned in favour of the petitioner and, therefore, the present petition was not competent.