WAHIDI BEGUM Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) INSTANT writ petition has been filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India for quashing the references (Annexures P -4 and P -5) made by respondent no. 6 -Section Officer/Managing Officer, Land Claims Organization, Rehabilitation Department, Haryana and order dated 31.03.1993 (Annexure P -6) passed by respondent no. 3 -Chief Settlement Commissioner, Rehabilitation Department, Haryana whereby orders dated 31.07.1958, 28.09.1959 and June, 1963 passed by the Central Government under Section 16(1) of the Administration of Evacuee Property Act, 1950 (in short '1950 Act') read with Section 20 -A of the Displaced Persons (Compensation & Rehabilitation) Act, 1954 (in short '1954 Act'), have been set aside and allotment of land made in favour of the petitioner has been set aside.

(2.) IT is the case of the petitioner that her father and uncle jointly owned 2716 bighas and 3 biswas of agricultural land in joint khewats of three villages of the then Tehsil Fatehabad, District Hisar. The petitioner, her father and uncle never migrated to West Pakistan, but stayed in India. They never became evacuees within the term as defined in Section 2(d) of the '1950 Act', however, their land was wrongly taken in 'evacuee pool' by the Rehabilitation Department. The Central Government while exercising the powers under Section 16 of the '1950 Act' made orders dated 31.07.1958 and 28.09.1959 and issued certificates declaring the petitioner entitled for restoration with regard to property belonging to her father and uncle, respectively, who had died. The entire area of holdings of both the owners was not included in Schedule II attached to order dated 31.07.1958 and the same was later corrected as 2716 bighas 3 biswas vide corrigendum order of June, 1963.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner, her father and uncle never migrated to Pakistan as they shifted in India to some other place at the time of partition of the country. The property was, therefore, wrongly declared evacuee property and could not have been distributed. The petitioner is entitled to restoration of land owned by her father and uncle. In support of his contentions, learned counsel relied upon The Financial Commissioner Revenue and another vs. Sifte Hassan (deceased through his legal representative) : 2013(3) R.C.R. (Civil) 241.