CHANDIGARH ADMINISTRATION Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Both these writ petitions are at the instance of the Chandigarh Administration challenging the order passed by the Custodian constituted under the Administration of Evacuee Property Act, 1950. In CWP No. 15724 of 1992. The rival claimants to the Chandigarh Administration are persons who claim to be purchasers from one Muslim who was owner of the property, while the private respondent in CWP No. 15725 of 1992 claims to be an allottee of a property under administration of Evacuee Property Act and making a claim to the property under the Displaced Persons(Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act of 1954 (hereinafter called the Act of 1954)

(2.) The point for consideration in both the writ petitions is whether the property belongs to Chandigarh Administration in the manner in which it is claimed, namely, as subject of acquisition made by the State of Punjab under the East Punjab Requisitioning and Acquisition of Immovable Property (temporary powers) Act of 1948. The requisition notification relied on by the Administration is a notification issued on 7.1.1952 setting out several items of properties. The properties were said to have been brought under the consolidation scheme when all the properties which are now staked by the private respondents were said to have been ordered to be entered in the name of the Chandigarh Administration. There were said to have been some omissions of not including an extent of 66 bighas 2 biswas of land as belonging to the Administration that was sought to be corrected through a petition filed under Section 42 of East Punjab Holdings(Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation Act 1948. The Additional Director had passed an order dated 9.3.1987 purporting to direct the entries to be corrected which included all the properties claimed by the private respondents. These proceedings were done before the Additional Director of Consolidation in the presence of the private respondents and after orders were passed mutating the entries in favour of the petitioner, the private respondents in the above cases had petitioned under Section 27 of the Administration of Evacuee Property Act for treating the property as property either sold or allotted to them and asserting a claim contesting the order passed by the Consolidation Authority. The petitions of the private respondents have been favourably considered on an observation that consolidation authorities could not have directed the mutation in favour of the Chandigarh Administration, without assessing their own claims either under private purchase or the allotments made under the Act of 1954.

(3.) At the previous hearing, at the commencement of the argument I had directed the counsel for the Chandigarh Administration to produce any order acquiring the property, on an assumption that even apart from an acquisition notice issued under Section 3 of the Act of 1958 it would be necessary to pass an express order of acquisition. The counsel states that the acquisition was made under the provisions of East Punjab Requisitioning and Acquisition of Immovable Property (temporary powers) Act of 1948 and would rely on the provisions of the Act relating to vesting. I have seen through the acquisition notice issued on 7.1.1952 and there is no doubt that it was purported to be issued under the Act 1948 as amended and validated by the Act 2 of 1951 read with notification issued on 5.8.1947. Section 3 of the Act would obtain significance and it is reproduced as under:-