PANNALAL Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition of Pannalal arises out of the following circumstances : petitioner Pannalal had advanced a loan to one Ashraf All who after the partition of the country, migrated to Pakistan leaving behind him three house properties in the town of Ajmer. Petitioner had obtained a decree on 2nd August. 1948, of Rs. 4,000/- with 3 per cent interest against ashraf Ali from the court of the Sub Judge. First Class, Ajmer in Civil Suit no. 436 of 1948. On 12th of September 1949, the petitioner registered his third party claim with the Assistant Custodian of the erstwhile State of Ajmer for the payment of the decretal amount and the same was registered vide the letters of the Assistant Custodian (Annexure 2 and annexure 3) dated 24th of July 1951 and 21st of September. 1951, respectively. Thereafter it so appears that the Assistant Custodian did not take any proceedings to pay off the claim of the petitioner as registered with him under Rule 22 of the Administration of Evacuee property (Central) Rule Section 1950. It is alleged that the properties of the evacuee which vested in the custodian were ultimately sold for Rs. 46,100/- but the authorities did not care to discharge the decretal debt which was due to the petitioner from the evacuee. Petitioner made various representations to the authorities concerned to expedite the payment of the decretal debt but to his dismay those representations did not bear any fruit. A reply was received from Shri T. N. Mathur Accounts officer of the Regional Settlement Commissioner Raiasthan. Jaipur vide his letter No. RSCR/ao (C)/acctts/third party claim/68/10398 wherein it was mentioned that the claim of the petitioner was receiving attention of the department. This letter has been placed on the record as Annexure 6. Thereafter, petitioner's counsel wrote letter to the Regional settlement Commissioner. Jaipur, requesting him to expedite the matter and to that letter a reply was received once again from the same officer vide letter dated 8th November. 1968 (Annexure 8) expressing that the matter was receiving his attention. But the grievance of the petitioner is that no action was taken toy the Assistant Regional Settlement commissioner who was functioning as a custodian also. When upto 1970 the petitioner did not receive any satisfactory reply from the office of the assistant Settlement Commissioner. Rajasthan Region, Jaipur, who had promised to look into the matter, a letter was again addressed to Shri n. B. Gorwaney who was then Assistant Settlement Commissioner. Raiasthan Region, reminding him of the promise made by him. In reply to that letter Shri Gorwaney wrote back to the petitioner that the aforesaid three properties belonging to the evacuee have already been disposed of and the sale proceeds thereof have constituted Part of the compensation pool which vests in the Central Government and that the custodian had no jurisdiction to make payment out of the compensation pool to satisfy the petitioner's claim.

(2.) IT is averred by the petitioner that under the law the Assistant Settlement commissioner, Jaipur, was also exercising the powers of the Custodian and as such he was under an obligation to discharge the liabilities of an evacuee under the provisions of Section 10 (1) read with Section 10 (2) fan) of the Administration of Evacuee Property Act, 1950 (hereinafter called the Act ). Having failed to get his money from the Custodian, after trying for a long period of 21 years, the petitioner was compelled to knock the doors of this Court by invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution and has prayed that by issuing an appropriate writ, order or direction, the respondents may be asked to pay the amount of Rs. 7,000/- to the petitioner under the decree passed by the Sub-Judge. Aimer with 3 per cent future interest thereon.

(3.) THE petitioner has impleaded the Union of India, the Regional Settlement commissioner. Jaipur and the Custodian of Evacuee Property. Jaipur as the respondents, but none of the respondents cared to appear before this Court and file the reply to the petition.