HARYANA STATE AND ORS Vs. CHATTARBHUJ LILAWATI TRUST

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff's suit for declaration and for injunction had been dismissed by the trial Court. The appellate Court reversed the decision and the defendants-State authorities are the appellants before this Court.

(2.) The suit of the plaintiff complained of the action of the notice issued by the 3rd defendant Tehsildar directing the removal of construction and complaining of the plaintiff's possession as in unauthorized occupation. The plaintiff's contention was that the property which was in an extent of 2 bighas 1 biswa out of Khasra Nos.3545, 3546, 3547, 3548, 3544 and 3543 min in Patti Ansar, Panipat belonged at all times to the plaintiff-Trust and the Custodian of the Rehabilitation Department through which the defendants asserted title and complained of the plaintiff as in unlawful occupation had no interest at all in the subject matter. The plaintiff would state that the property belonged to one Chattar Bhuj and he had created a Trust in the property for performance of certain charities and he had never created any transaction of sale or transfer to any persons, who had fled to Pakistan at the time of partition leaving the property as evacuee property. Consequently, there was no scope for any orders to be passed treating the property as evacuee property and if there had been any order so passed, it was void, illegal and inoperative. The plaintiff would make specific reference to the order passed by the Tehsildar (Sales)-cum-Assistant Custodian on 28.07.1975, referring to the alleged sales made by Chattar Bhuj through power of attorney Abdul Hakim in favour of certain persons as resulting in the property to be rendered as evacuee property and contend that the order was illegal. The property was never declared as evacuee property and the same being without the municipal limits of Panipat partook the character of urban immovable property did not form part of the package deal between the Haryana State and the Union of India.

(3.) The suit was resisted by the State contending that the properties had all been sold between 11.06.1945 to 22.06.1945 through 20 sale deeds to various persons, who were Muslims and on their migration to Pakistan, the property automatically vested by operation of Section 4 of the East Punjab Administration of Property Act of 1947 and under Section 8(2A) of the Administration of Property Act of 1950. The properties were later managed by the Central Government under Section 12 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act of 1954 and knowing the vesting of the property in the Government, the plaintiff-Trust itself had made an application in June 1975 for the sale of the property to the Trust at a reasonable price. The plaintiff cannot, therefore, set up title in itself and deny the title to the Government.