AMAR SINGH GIRDHARI LAL Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE dispute in this petition under Articles 226 and 277 of the Constitution of india is concerned with House No. 262 in Malot Mandi in Ferozepur district. The house in its entirely has been transferred to the 4th respondent Kaura Mal under rule 30 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Rules, 1955, by order of the Settlement Commissioner passed on 18th of November, 1961, and of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act on 8th of february, 1962.

(2.) IT is not disputed that house No. 262 in Malot Mandi was allotted to the petitioner, the fourth respondent and 5 other persons. Later on, Ram Singh, one of the allottees, left the portion which had been allotted to him, and he is no longer interested in the transfer of the portion which had been in his occupation. When the question for permanent transfer of house No. 262 was taken up for consideration after the acquisition of all evacuee properties by the Central government, it was first transferred to the fourth respondent by the Assistant settlement Officer, Ludhiana, on 29th of September, 1959. From this order, five appeals were preferred, one by other petitioner and the other by four other occupants, on the ground that the property being divisible should have been allotted to all the occupants. This contention found favour with the Assistant settlement Commissioner, Ludhiana, who on 26th of November, 1959, remanded the proceedings with a direction that the question of divisibility should be considered and allotment made accordingly. The property was held to be divisible by the Assistant Settlement Officer on remand and the fourth respondent still feeling aggrieved field an appeal before by Settlement Commissioner. In the order passed by the Settlement Commissioner, which is sought to be impugned in these proceedings, of 18th of November, 1961, the view was taken that as the property was in occupation of only six out of the seven original allottees, it could not be dealt with under the provisions of rule 30. On this short ground the petition was allowed and the order for transfer in favour of the 4th respondent was passed.

(3.) AT this stage, it would be useful to set out the provisions of rule 30 which it may be observed parenthetically has now been deleted altogether: