LAWS(RAJ)-1984-3-31

BISHAN DAS Vs. UNION OF INDIA

Decided On March 07, 1984
Bishan Das Appellant
V/S
UNION OF INDIA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AGAINST the order dated October 1, 1973, the unsuccessful petitioner Bishandas has filed this appeal under Section 18 of the Rajasthan High Court Ordinance 1949. The petitioner -appellant filed the writ Petilioner for issuance of appropriate writ, order or direction against ffespondent No. 4 (the Tehsildar Colonisation Tehsil Gharsana Head -quarter Anupgarh), restraining him from proceeding with the case under Section 91 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act (No. XV of 1956) and further for a direction not to interfere with the possession of the petitioner -appellant over the land. Certain other reliefs were also sought.

(2.) FOR the disposal of this appeal, the material facts are these : Respondent No. 2 (The Managing Officer, Ministry of Rehabilitation) allotted out of the compensation pool, agricultural lands co uprising part of Khasra No. 2 measuring 44 Bighas 10 Biswas in village Jivendesar, Tehsil Anupgarh under Section 20(1)(c) of the Displaced Persons (Compensation rid Rehabilitation) Act (No. XLIV of 1954) (for short 'the Act' herein) in favour of the petitioner's father on April 11, 1963. The order has been submitted and marked as Ex. 1. In para 5 of the writ petition, it was stated that Khasra No. 2 was evacuee property on account of the migration of the Muslims Khatedars of lands to Pakistan after March, 1947 on account of the constitution of the dominions of India and Pakistan and as such it became the evacuee property within the meaning of Section 2(c) of the Bikaner Evacuee (Administration of Property) Order 1948 (hereinafter referred to as the Order of 1948) and also within the meaning of Section 2(f) of the Administration of Evacuee Property Act (No.11 of 1950) which will for the sake of brevity be rtferreu to as the Act of 1950 in terms of the provisions of s 4 of the Order of 1948 and Section 8(2) and Section 2(A) of the Act of 1950. As it was evacuee properly, it vested in the Custodian. The State Agricultural Evacuee Properly was acquired by the Central Government under Section 12 of the Act vide Government of India notification dated April 6, 1955 published in the Gazette of India Part II Section (2) dated April 6 1955 by the Ministry of Rehabilitation, New Delhi. It constituted a part of the compensation pool for the purpose of rehabilitation of displaced persons. The petitioner -appellant was not put in possession. Keptesentations were made for the purpose but they were of no avail. Ultimately the petitioner's father started cultivating the allotted lands. In para 8, the petitioner has mentioned the new rectangular marks of the lands. After the death of the petitioner's father the petitioner continued to be in possession as his successor. The petitioner was prevented from cultivating the land and respondent No. 4 invited applications for its allotment on July 4, 1972. The case of the petitioner is that he is being threatened to be dispossessed and his title is being clouded by the temporary allotment which may be made. He, therefore, tiled the writ petition as aforesaid. No reply was filed on behalf of the respondents. Additional affidavit of Panjuram who is the Mukhtiar of the petitioner was filed making reference of Asaram v. Union of India (SB Civil Writ Petition No. 1632 of 1970. decided on April 24, 1972 and SB Civil Writ Petition No. 164 of 1970). It was stated that the State Government has not denied that the land in question was not evacuee property and, therefore, documents bearing on this question were not filed. In para 5 of the affidavit it was stated that he has learnt that Kalu son of Sadu was the Khatedar of this land who had migrated to Pakistan after March 1947 and, therefore, the land in dispute became evacuee property. Along with the affidavit, copy Misal Bandobast village Jivandesar relating to the year Saravat 2003 was filed. After considering submissions that were made before him, the learned single Judge recorded the following findings:

(3.) THE letter Ex. 1 which was issued to the petitioner's father Uttamchand recites Khasra 2/44 -10 situated in Chak Jivandesar. In that letter it is mentioned that land under Section 20(1)(c) of the Act is being allotted. 'Compenation Pool' and 'Evacuee Property' have been defined in Section 2(1) and (c) respectively of the Act. Material portion of Section 14 is as followos -