JASWANT SINGH Vs. DY SECY REHABILITATION, PUNJAB GOVT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Jaswant Singh petitioner (now deceased and represented by his legal representatives) filed a petition under Section 27 of the Administration of Evacuee Property Act (hereafter the Act) in village Khamanon Kalan, Tehsil Samrala, District Ludhiana, which had wrongly been vested in the custodian be released in his favour. The Assistant Custodian vide order dated November 30, 1966 (p-1) held that the plot in dispute had been wrongly declared evacuee property and the same was released. In 1976 Harchand Singh respondent No. 3 and Amrik Singh respondent 4 filed a petition before the Assistant Custodian praying that the order dated November 3, 1966 (P-1) which was ex parte be set aside. The Assistant Custodian dismissed their application vide order dated April 6, 1976. Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 then filed a petition under Section 27 of the Act which was disposed of by the custodian general vide order dated November 24, 1976 (P-2). The order of the Assistant Custodian dated November 30, 1966, was set aside and the case was remanded for report. The order P-2 has been assailed in the present writ petition.

(2.) The State as also respondent Nos. 3 and 4 have not put in appearance in spite of service.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioners has argued that the property in dispute at one time was vested in the Custodian. The Assistant Custodian found, vide order dated November 30, 1966, (P-1) that it was not evacuee property. It was thus released. The case of respondent Nos. 3 and 4 before the Custodian General was that the property had been wrongly released in favour of the petitioners inasmuch as it was in their possession. The argument proceeds that in view of the claim of respondent Nos. 3 and 4 there could be a dispute about the plot in dispute between the petitioner and respondent Nos. 3 and 4. There was, therefore, no occasion for he Custodian General to set aside the order of the Assistant Custodian P-1. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is correct. It was not the case of respondent Nos. 3 and 4 before the Custodian General that the property released in favour of the petitioner was evacuee. Their claim before the Custodian General was that the property released was in their possession. The Custodian General has no jurisdiction to decide the respective claims of two private parties over the plot in dispute. The Custodian General, therefore, wrongly assumed jurisdiction by entertaining the petition filed by respondent Nos. 3 and 4. The order P-2 is, therefore, liable to be set aside.