(1.) Feeling aggrieved against the inaction on the part of respondent authorities, the petitioners have approached this Court by way of present writ petition seeking a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to allot alternative land to the petitioners and put them in possession immediately. To unravel the controversy involved between the parties, brief narration of essential facts of the case would be required. The pleaded case on behalf of the petitioners was that they were mortgagees with possession and never left the country during partition. They stayed back. However, wrongly treating the land owned by the petitioners as evacuee property, it was allotted in favour of displaced persons, who came from Pakistan. Thus, the petitioners became restores. They moved the respondent authorities for putting them in possession of their land or for allotment of alternative land in their favour. The order dated 6.12.1976 (Annexure P-1) was passed by the Custodian General, Haryana, directing the Assistant Custodian General, Haryana, to consider the claim of the petitioners for allotment of an alternative area.
(2.) Thereafter, petitioners kept on representing to the respondent authorities either for restoration of possession of that very land, which was under their possession as mortgagees or for allotment of an equivalent alternate area. However, claim of the petitioners in compliance of the above said order dated 6.12.1976 (Annexure P-1) was, as a matter of fact, never considered and decided by any competent authority. This fact is not denied even by learned counsel for the State during the course of hearing. Thus, having been left with no other option, petitioners have approached this court by way of present writ petition.
(3.) Learned Senior counsel for the petitioners submits, that the Assistant Custodian was duty bound to consider the claim of the petitioners in compliance of the order Annexure P-1 and the same ought to have been decided by passing an appropriate order, in accordance with law. He also places reliance on the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Bhanwarlal and another v. Regional Settlement Commissioner, Jaipur cum Custodian Evacuee Property and others, 1965 AIR(SC) 1885 and Lachhman Dass and others etc. v. Municipal Committee, Jalabad and others etc., 1969 AIR(SC) 1126 to contend that the mortgagees rights of the petitioners which had culminated into their absolute ownership, could not have been taken away by the State forcibly in the manner the rights have been taken. Neither the petitioners were granted any compensation nor the possession was restored to them on their original piece of land, on which they were admittedly in possession as mortgagees. Besides this, their right for alternate allotment of an equivalent area was also not considered despite the order dated 6.12.1976 (Annexure P-1), having been passed in their favour; Finally, he prays for allowing the present writ petition, seeking appropriate directions to the respondent authorities, atleast to consider the claim of the petitioners in compliance of the order Annexure P-1 and decide the same, in accordance with law.