LALLU RAM Vs. C P SAPRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The admitted case of both sides is that certain urban agricultural land in Basti Guzan within the municipal limits of Jullundur, which was originally evacuee property, was leased out to Shri C.P. Sapra, respondent No. 1 and continued to be held by the first respondent as a lease-hold even after the property in question vested in the Central Government after the coming into force of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 44 of 1954 and in pursuance of the relevant notification under Section 12 of the said Act. It appears that after a certain period the lease was renewed periodically. The case of the petitioners is that it was not renewed after 1956. According to respondent No. 1, however, the lease was duly renewed till kharif 1958.

(2.) Certain press notes had been issued by the Central Government which were ultimately clarified by a memorandum of the Chief Settlement Commissioner dated 27th November, 1958 wherein it was held that lessees of urban agricultural land had the right to select on plot, i.e. one Khasra No. of land, the value of which was less than Rs. 10,000/- out of their lease-hold and the rest of the leased out to them was to be disposed of by public auction.

(3.) In pursuance of the abovesaid press notes and clarification issued by the Chief Settlement Commissioner, notice was served on Shri C.P. Sapra on 27th March, 1958 asking him to make an application in the prescribed form to get any plot transferred to him out of the land in question. It is the common case of both the parties that no effort to have any Khasra No. or plot transferred to him was made by Shri Sapra at that stage. The entire land in question comprised in the original lease of Shri C.P. Sapra was thereafter put to auction in two lots. The first lot was purchased in the auction by Lalu Ram, petitioner No. 1 for Rs. 23,000/-. The remaining land in question was purchased in the auction for Rs. 24,000/- by Sahi Ram, petitioner No. 2. Both the petitioners are real brothers. It is not disputed that the net consideration of both the sales was paid out by the petitioners in full and that actual physical possession of the entire land had been delivered to them as long ago as in 1958. This has been described by the department as provisional possession for the obvious reason that sale certificates in respect of the said two sales might not have been given to them. Admittedly no appeal was preferred by Shri C.P. Sapra either against the order of the Government directing the disposal of the said land by auction or against the sale itself. Nor was any appeal preferred by Mr. Sapra against his dispossession.