BRIJ LAL Vs. THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Petitioner claiming to be a displaced person from Pakistan came to this part of the country and was given on lease evacuee Industrial Establishment No. 144 at Ludhiana. The Petitioner -states that he has been paying its lease money first to the Department of the Custodian Evacuee Property and then to the District Rent and Managing Officer. He is still in possession. In due course, Shri Mangal Sain joined the Petitioner as a partner in this concern. The Petitioner is a claimant, which claim has not been satisfied uptil now. Under Rule 25 of the Displaced Persons (C&R) Rules, 1955, it was incumbent upon the Department to offer the said Industrial Establishment to the Petitioner on its assessed price because the establishment was allottable under Rule 22. Its assessed price has been described to be about Rs. 16,000 which is less than Rs. 50,000. On revision having been fixed by Mangal Sain with the Chief Settlement Commissioner, Shri C.P. Sapra, had definitely directed on 7th, November, 1960, that the Industrial Establishment should be transferred to the Petitioner as its claimant -allottee. The Petitioner thereafter approached the District Rent and Managing Officer with a request for the transfer but it was not complied with. On 28th July, 1962, it was stated that the property had already been put to auction and sold to Smt. Nand Rani, Respondent No. 5 in this Court. The Petitioner went up in appeal before the Settlement Officer but the same was rejected. A further revision with the Deputy Chief Settlement Commissioner was also disallowed on 11th January, 1963, on the ground that the sale having once been made, it could only be set aside on the ground of fraud or irregularity. It is In these circumstances that the present writ petition has been presented and the Petitioner claims that being a claimant -allottee of the property in question, he has a legal right to the permanent transfer thereof under Rule 25.

(2.) IN the written statement by Respondent No. 5, it has been pleaded that it is Mangal Sain who is in possession of the property and not the Petitioner who has no concern with the property so far as the answering Respondent's knowledge goes. It has been denied that there was any direction in the order dated 7th November, 1960, and indeed it is pleaded that no such direction could be given under the law. That order merely rejected Mangal Sain's revision. The property, it is expressly asserted, was auctioned as far back as 17th March, 1960, and purchased by the answering Respondent in an open bid. The conveyance -deed has already been executed and the Respondent has applied for possession of the property. It is really at the instance of Mangal Sain that the present petition has been presented in this Court.

(3.) BEFORE me, reliance has been placed on Rule 25, which is in the following terms: