SARFO DEVI Vs. STATE OF J&K

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONERS are the displaced persons of West Pakistan. On migration, the petitioners father, Bachiter, occupied evacuee land in R.S. Pura. The petitioners father was a proprietary land owner. They had proprietary land in village Sanghotra, Tehsil R.S. Pura prior to migration in 1947, now in West Pakistan. Petitioners father, Bachiter, was also allotted a land in village Saroha, Tehsil, Garshanker in lieu of his land held in West Pakistan. It was in the year 1954 that Cabinet Order No. 578 -C promulgated and the petitioners holding evacuee/ State land much prior to 1954 claimed to be entitled to the regulisation of the said land having been migrated from Border area. It is further contended by the petitioners that they are not double allottees. That the evacuee land occupied by them was on account of their migration from village Sanghotra and they are rehabilitated at Suchetgarh. That the petitioners are entitled to retain this land, which was occupied by them at Suchetgarh, in exchange of the proprietary land left by them at village Sanghotra, West Pakistan, were from they migrated in the year 1947. The Provincial Rehabilitation Officer, (PRO), Jammu, however, cancelled the allotment vide his order dated 19th February, 1973 treating them as double allottees. The petitioners, however, canvassed the correctness of the order before the Divisional Commissioner, Jammu but without any success. The Revision Petition was rejected vide Divisional Commissioners order dated 31 -8 -1977 and order of the PRO, Jammu was confirmed, which became the subject matter of this writ petition commenced by the petitioners claiming the following relief:

(2.) THE stand of the respondents is that, the benefit of Cabinet Order No. 578 -C and also Government order No. 254 of 1965 can only be conferred on a person, who fulfills the requisite qualifications/ conditions laid down in the said orders. The proprietary rights can be conferred only on those persons and benefits given, when they are covered by the aforesaid orders. It was contended that whether the petitioners are covered and fulfil the conditions specified in the aforesaid order is a disputed question of fact and, therefore, cannot be decided in exercise or writ jurisdiction. The land in dispute can be regularised only when the eligibility criteria is fulfilled and which is not in the case of the petitioners.

(3.) IT is not disputed that the Provincial Rehabilitation Officer, Jammu had cancelled the allotment of petitioners treating them as double allottees vide order dated 19th February, 1973. This order was assailed before the Divisional Commissioner, who also confirmed the order of the PRO on 31 -8 -1977, extract of which is given as under: