PRITHVI CHAND CHANDU MAL Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS judgment will dispose of four Letters Patent Appeals (Letters Patent appeals Nos. 57d, 58d, 59d of 1962 and 73d of 1965 ). Main arguments have been addressed in L, P. A. 58-D of 1962 and it is conceded that the other three appeals would stand or fall with this one. The facts giving rise to this appeal may now briefly be stated.

(2.) THE petitioner claiming to be a displaced person from district Hazara N. W. F. P. , now forming part of West Pakistan, migrated to India and settled down permanently in village Tihar in Delhi. He was owner of agricultural land and buildings in West Pakistan. His claim in respect of agricultural land was verified for 4 standard acres and 9-1/2 units while his claim in respect of rural buildings was verified for Rs. 9,441/8/ -. The latter claim was, however, rejected on the ground that the petitioner had already been allotted agricultural land in India against the land held by him in Pakistan. His claim for agricultural land having thus been verified, he was found to be eligible for allotment of agricultural land in Delhi state. The Additional Custodian of Evacuee Property (Rural), New Delhi, in november, 1953, allotted to the petitioner barani agricultural land, the possession of which was taken by the petitioner soon after. He claims to have been in continuous possession of the said land, having also spent more than Rs. 3,000/on improvement thereof. According to Rule 49 of the Displaced Persons (C and R)Rules, 1955, a displaced person having a verified claim in respect of agricultural land is required, as far as possible, to be paid compensation by allotment of agricultural land. The writ petition continues to aver that according to Rules 62, 63 and 56 of the said Rules, the petitioner is entitled to permanent transfer of the entire area of agricultural land in his occupation which had been allotted to him before the commencement of the said rules against his verified claim relating to agricultural land left in Pakistan. On 10-7-1959, however, the Settlement Officer, managing Officer (Rural) Gokhle Market, Delhi, issued a notice to the petitioner alleging that the latter was not entitled to the transfer of the entire area allotted to him and called upon the petitioner to show cause why the allotment of the land except in respect of one Khasra number valued below Rs. 10,000/-not be cancelled. The petitioner preferred objections against the proposed action which were disallowed. An appeal was preferred by the petitioner to the Assistant settlement Commissioner (Rural) but the same was dismissed on 21-10-1959, as time-barred. It was in these circumstances that the writ petition was presented in this Court. Grover, J. , dealing with a large number of writ petitions together, did not feel inclined to exercise his extraordinary powers under Article 226 in favour of the petitioners because the learned counsel for the department (now Mr. Justice jindra Lal) slated that the department was willing to give the benefit of the new rules contained in Chapter V-A of the Displaced Persons (C and R) Amendment rules, 1960. It may be pointed out that the learned Judge was also of the view that Rules 22 and 23 could have no possible application to the cases before him, but in spite of this infirmity, he was disinclined to grant relief under Article 226 because of the willingness of the department to give the benefit of the new rules to the petitioners as stated by the learned Government counsel.

(3.) ON Letters Patent Appeal in this Court, the short question canvassed on behalf of the appellant relates to the vires of the amended Rule 49 of the Displaced persons (C and R) Rules. This rule may appropriately be read at this stage.