TIKKO BAI Vs. DIVISIONAL COMMISSIONER BIKANER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner who is a poor and helpless widow has knocked the doors of justice by way of this writ petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India in the matter of Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954 and the relevant provisions of Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 whereby the petitioner has challenged the impugned order, dated 1-9-1993 passed by the Divisional Commissioner, Bikaner (respondent No. 1) directing resumption of the property/land which was duly allotted to the father-in-law of the petitioner as a displaced person from West Pakistan at Sriganganagar in lieu of the property left by the petitioner's father-in-law in West Pakistan on partition of the country in 1947. The petitioner who was already displaced person has been displaced again having been rendered homeless by the instrumentality of the State viz. the District Re-habilitation Officer, Sriganganagar (respondent No. 4) on resumption of the land in question which was earlier duly allotted in favour of the petitioner's father-in-law by the said respondent.

(2.) The facts giving rise to the filing of this writ petition briefly stated are that the petitioner is a resident of Chak 14 S Tehsil Srikaranpur, District Sriganganagar and agriculturist by profession. By an order of the District Rehabilitation Officer (respondent No. 4) the Late father-in-law of the petitioner, Shri Pedsingh was allotted a piece of land measuring 12 bighas 10 biswas as a claimant under the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 1954') against the claim of his land which he left in West Pakistan. The said piece of land was allotted vide Chak 14 S Tehsil Srikaranpur, District Sriganganagar. Shri Pedsingh, the allottee, died leaving behind one son named Kala Singh and three daughters. The petitioner is the wife of Late Shri Kalasingh son of Late Shri Pedsingh. After the death of her husband, the petitioner has been in continuous possession of the said property. Since the son of the petitioner was unwell and was ailing in Punjab, the petitioner had to leave Sriganganagar for attending her ailing son and due to the circumstances beyond her control she had entrusted the possession of the said property to Dilip Singh (respondent No. 5) who was appointed as care-taker of the said property on rental basis. When the petitioner returned back from Punjab she asked Dilip Singh to vacate the land and hand over its possession to her. The said respondent refused to hand over the possession and vacate the land and under the circumstances the petitioner was left with no option but to request the District Rehabilitation Officer (respondent No. 4) by moving an application dated 20-1-1982 to direct the said Dilip Singh (respondent No. 5) to vacate the land and hand over its possession to the petitioner. Instead of directing respondent No. 5 to vacate the land and to hand over its possession to the petitioner, respondent No. 4 directed resumption of the said property in favour of the Government vide order dated 10-11-1983; aggrieved by which the petitioner preferred an appeal before the competent authority which was rejected against which revision petition was filed which was allowed and the case was remanded back to the District Rehabilitation Officer (respondent No. 4) to pass a fresh order after giving full opportunity of hearing to both the parties in accordance with law.

(3.) In the impugned order dated 6-9-1986 (Annexure 1) passed by District Rehabilitation Officer, Sriganganagar (respondent No. 4) specific finding has been recorded in favour of the petitioner regarding production of kila jamabandi regarding bona fide possession of the land in question in her favour which is further borne out from the specific entries in her favour in the revenue records. In terms of the earlier order passed by the trial Court on 21-8-1986 in case No. 446/84 from 17-5-84 the petitioner was held to be entitled to, 1/4 share of the land in question along with three daughters of Late Shri Pedsingh. No appeal was preferred against the said order and hence the same became final and conclusive. It has been further observed by the District Rehabilitation Officer in the impugned order, dated 6-9-1986, that Dilip Singh had contended that he was adoptive son of Late Shri Pedsingh but he had failed to furnish any satisfactory proof in support of his contention, i.e., adoption deed etc. and further the evidence tendered on the record also failed to prove the contention of respondent No. 5 as adopted son of Late Shri Pedsingh. Since Pedsingh died leaving behind his natural born son Kalasingh hence the question of taking Dilip Singh, respondent No. 5, in adoption did not arise. Hence the status of respondent No. 5 regarding possession of the land in question was not better than that of a trespasser and accordingly the authorities concerned were directed to get unlawful possession from respondent No. 5 of the land in question, vacated. It has been further observed by the District Rehabilitation Officer that since admittedly Dilip Singh was a rank trespasser and had failed to furnish satisfactory proof of possession of land in question, he should be directed to vacate the land in question and in compliance with the provisions of Sec. 19(2)(b) of the Act of 1954 read with Rule 102 the possession of the land measuring 12 bighas 10 biswas be resumed by the Central Government. It was further directed that Tehsildar was to take steps for auctioning the land every year for agriculture purposes on rental basis. An appeal was preferred by the petitioner against the impugned order of the District Rehabilitation Officer before the Collector-Cum-Chief Settlement Commissioner, Sriganganagar (respondent No. 2) under Section 24 of the Act of 1954.