PRUSHOTTAM LAL SHARMA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner by this writ petition has prayed that the respondent Managing Officer be directed to issue corrigendums in respect of properties EP -1/28 and EP -3/37 in the conveyance deeds of these properties. It is also prayed that the respondent Sub -Registrar may in turn be directed to modify the conveyance already issued and corrigendums to be issued conseuqent to the prayer made in the preceding para. It is also prayed that the respondent Collector may be directed to take steps to hand -over the possession of the properties to the petitioner.

(2.) THE petitioner is a displaced person having migrated to and settled in India From Pakistan. A claim in respect of the properties left by the petitioner in Pakistan was filed. The claim was settled at a sum of Rs. 56,140/ - which included the rehabilitation grant. This was done by two separate orders made in this behalf. It is alleged that the petitioner has not heard about his claim and it is only by the communication dated 10.11.1961 that the petitioner was informed that his application for compensation has been finalised for a sum of Rs. l 1,240/ - out of which a sum of Rs. 669/ - has already been adjusted against EP - 4/3 at Bharatpur leaving a balance of Rs. 10,571/ -, a copy whereof has been placed on the record as Annex.l. Then, the petitioner addressed the letter dated 15.2.1962 to the Regional Settlement Commissioner, Jaipur enquiring as to who has authorised this adjustment in respect of sum of Rs. 669/ -. This letter was not responded to and instead of that a communication dated 21.12.1962 was sent to the petitioner informing the petitioner that in respect of unpaid compensation in the sum of Rs. 1628/ - which the petitioner has not been able to utilise and more than 6 months have passed, therefore, it is proposed to issue U.P. Zamindari Abolition Bonds against balance of compensation payable to the petitioner. Since the compensation had not been paid to the petitioner at all he also filed a protest petition against the alleged adjustment of the compensation against the properties vide letter dated 31.12.1962. The Assistant Settlement Officer, Jaipur vide his letter dated 28.1.1963 informed the petitioner that as per the record one Shri Ram Lal has been acting on petitioner's behalf in the capacity of his special power of attorney and has been offering associations in various properties to the Managing Officer, Alwar, and adjustments have, therefore, been carried out on advices received from the Managing Officer, Alwar from time to time. The petitioner pleaded his ignorance of Shri Ram Lal, therefore, an inquiry was ordered into the matter and the petitioner was advised to see the Assistant Settlement Officer. The petitioner accordingly contacted the Assistant Settlement Officer and the statements of the petitioner were recorded on 18.2.1963. Thereafter also the petitioner did not hear anything from the respondents and the petitioner served a notice upon the Regional Settlement Commissioner, Jaipur through counsel. This led to the Regional Settlement Commissioner, Rajasthan endorsing to the petitioner a copy of the letter written by him to the Managing Officer, Alwar. In this letter it was stated that since Shri Ram Lal had not attended office despite repeated summons to prove the genuineness of the documents produced by him it is presumed that these documents are not genuine and Shri Ram Lal had no authority to agree to the adjustment of any amount of the compensation due to the petitioner. The Managing Officer, therefore, directed to inform all those who had associated with this claimant that the association offered by them has been rejected and call upon them to make good the balance of the sale price under the Rules. It was further stated that the transfer deeds have already been issued in respect of the properties without showing the petitioner as associate in the purchase of these properties the transfer deeds should be got amended and the name of the petitioner should be included in each one of these deeds as required by the rules because his consent to the non -inclusion of his name in these deeds has not been received. While forwarding a copy of this letter to the petitioner the petitioner was told that as desired the balance of Rs. 4,884/ - still at his credit and is being paid to him in the form of U.P. Zamindari Abolition Bonds. Eventually the sum of Rs. 4,884/ - were paid to the petitioner in Camp at Jodhpur. A coy of this letter dated 27/31.3.1964 has been placed on the record as Annex.7. The managing Officer in his turn proceeded to issue corrigendums to the deeds of conveyances referred to in each of the corrigendum showing the name of the petitioner in the Schedule the copies whereof have been produced as Annex.8 to 13. Even after issuance of these corrigendums. no transfer deed has been modified in favour of the petitioner nor possession of the properties in respect of which the corrigendum has been issued has been given to the petitioner. It is alleged that besides these corrigendums, the corrigendums have not been issued in respect of two properties. The petitioner has been going from pillar to post requesting them to issue necessary corrigendums in respect of the properties but without any result. Therefore, the petitioner has been driven to file the present writ petition praying that the respondents may be directed to comply with the orders Annex.7 and 21 passed by the respondents whereby the Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs vide its communication dated 28.8.1989 has directed him to approach the concerned authorities for such corrigendums. It was also advised vide this communication that if such corrigendums have not been issued by conclusion of the name of the petitioner in the transfer deeds of the properties he should approach the Collector (Rehabilitation) Alwar in the matter. The petitioner approached this authority but without any result.

(3.) I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record.