LADHA RAM Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner Ladha Ram who has been in occupation of evacuee property enumerated as shop No. 284 in village Kunjpura on payment of rent fixed by the Managing Officer has assailed in these proceedings under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India transference of this shop by the Settlement authorities in favour of the fifth respondent Nota Ram.

(2.) The order in favour of the petitioner was passed on 9th of October, 1959 (Annexure A by Tehsildar, Karnal, as Managing Officer. It is stated in this order that "Shop No. 284 in Kunjpura is in the actual possession of one Shri Ladha Ram son of Karam Chand for the last 4 years and a sum of Rs. 100/- on account of rent has been recovered from him." In the property register this shop is shown to have been rented to Nota Ram who had applied for the purchase of the shop. According to the Managing Officer's recommendation, Nota Ram not being in actual possession of the shop "its ownership may not be transferred in his name as Shri Ladha Ram the present occupant has applied for the adjustment of the price of the shop." This order cannot be construed as one in favour of the petitioner and is only a recommendation to the Assistant Settlement Commissioner, Karnal, that the shop should not be transferred to Nota Ram, but may be allowed to remain in possession of the petitioner. According to the order of the Assistant Settlement Commissioner, passed on 1st of August, 1961, the earlier order of 13th of December, 1959, allotting the shop in favour of Nota Ram should have been upheld. Taking the view that Nota Ram respondent had been an actual allottee, the transfer was made in his favour. This order was upheld in revision by Shri Sapra, Settlement Commissioner, on 19th of December, 1961. The petitioner unsuccessfully tried to have this order reviewed by the Chief Settlement Commissioner and even went up to the Government under Section 33 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954. Having failed before all these authorities, the petitioner has sought the intervention of this Court in writ proceedings.

(3.) The contention of Mr. Wasu, the learned counsel for the petitioner, is that the order of the Settlement authorities is devoid of jurisdiction as the Managing Officer alone could have transferred the property and the order of the Tehsildar as Managing Officer of 9th of October, 1959, is sought to be such an order. Under sub-section (1) of Section 20, of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, ".......... the Managing Officer or Managing Corporation may transfer any property out of the compensation pool.....". It cannot, however, be ignored that such orders of the Managing Officer are liable to be set aside in revision by the Chief Settlement Commissioner. Sub-section (1) of Section 24 is in these terms -