CUSTODIAN GENERAL Vs. KARTAR CHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE are two Letters Patent Appeals against the judg ­ment of Mr. Justice Jaswant Singh sitting singly allowing the writ petition of the respondents and quashing the order of the Deputy Custodian General (Divisional Commissioner) Jammu; by which the respondents were ejected by the Dy Custodian General.

(2.) THE respondents are the real brothers and were Pakistani refugees from District Sialkote and had migrated to Tehsil R. S. Pora during the trouble following the partition of India in 1947. Shortly thereafter the respondents secured allotment of land measuring 26 kanals 6 marlas and 20 kanals 14 marlas in village Qadirpur, Tehsil R. S. Pora. The respondents father Sant Ram got allotment of the land in Dusuha, East Punjab. A complaint was made by Jai Singh to the Provincial Rehabi ­litation Officer (Custodian) Jammu, that as the respondents were in possession of excess land which they could not hold and as they constituted a joint family with their father, their allotment should be cancelled. The Provincial Rehabilitation Officer accepted the allegations made by Jai Singh and cancelled the allotment of the respondents. Against this order the respon ­dents went up in revision to the Custodian General, which was disposed of by the Deputy Custodian General who by his order dated 16 -2 -1967 confirmed its previous order dated 20 -3 -1965 by which the order of the P. R. O. was set aside and the case was remanded to him for disposal in accordance with law. There ­after the Provincial Rehabilitation Officer held a fresh enquiry and by his order dated 17 -10 -1967 maintained the order cancel ­ling the allotment of the respondents. Thereafter the respon ­dents went up in revision to the Deputy Custodian General who dismissed the revision petition holding that as the respondents were refugees from West Pakistan, they were not entitled to claim any allotment in the State. The respondents filed a writ petition against this order before this Court, which was heard by Mr. Justice Jaswant Singh who quashed the order of the Deputy Custodian General and set aside the order of the Pro ­vincial Rehabilitation Officer cancelling the allotment of the respondents. Hence this appeal before us.

(3.) IN support of this appeal two points were submitted by Mr. Salaria before us. In the first place he submitted that as the respondents constituted a joint family with their father, the allotment was invalid under the provisions of para 3 of Cabinet Order No. 578 -C of 1954 dated 7 -5 -1954. He next submitted that as the respondents were refugees not from Pakistan occu ­pied territory of the State but from West Pakistan, they as such, could not be considered to be displaced persons within the meaning of Para 3 of the said Cabinet Order and were therefore not entitled to allotment of land. In other words the appellant raised the same ground for assailing the order of the Single Judge which was taken by the Deputy Custodian General.