BACHAN KAUR Vs. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER RCP

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the petitioners are displaced persons from Peshawar in Pakistan. In lieu of the agricultural lards possessed by them in Pakistan the pet rioters were jointly allotted 35 bighas of land in Khasra No. 99 situated in village Jeewan Desar, Tehsil Anupgarh by the Managing Officer of the Rehabilitation Department of the Government of India by allotment Older dated 10.4.1963. The aforesaid land was allotted out of the land in the Khattedari of Captain Prince Amar Singh of Chhatargarh (sic) in the erstwhile State of Bikaner. The said Captain Prince Amar Singh had given the said land to one Gulam Rasul for cultivation and the said Gulam Rasul had field to Pakistan in 1947 & so the land measuring 72 bighas became vested in the Custodian of Evacuee Property. In pursuance of the allotment order passed by the Managing Officer the petitioners were put into possession of the land allotted to them on 17.4.1963. Since then the petitioners hive been in possession of the lands allotted to them. In 1968 the Executive Engineer, Rajasthan Canal Project asked the petitioners to leave the possession of the laid. The petitioners there up on approached the Rehabilitation authorities and on 10th June 1968 an order was passed by the Managing Officer, Sri Ganganagar for maintenance of status quo but inspite of the said order the Council authorities continued to interfere with the possession of the petitioners. Aggrieved by the aforesaid action of the Executive Engineer, Rajasthan Council Project, the petitioners filed this writ petition for the issue of a writ restraining the respondents front interfering in any way the peaceful enjoyment by the petitioners of the land in their possession.

(2.) IN the writ petition the case of the petitioners is that the Khatedari rights of Gulam Rasul in Khasra No. 99 had vested in the Custodian of Evacuee Property end he said land had been validly allotted to the petitioners by the Managing Officer.

(3.) I am of the view that this case is covered by the decision of this Court dated 24.4.1972 in Asharam and Anr. v. Union of India SBC Writ No 1632 of 1970 and Ratiram v. Union of India SBC Writ No. 1640 of 1970. In the aforesaid judgment it has been held that under the scheme of law with prevailed in the erstwhile State of Bikaner as soon as Muslim left far Pakistan, his property left by him automatically becomes an evacuee property and it vested in the Custodian and there was no necessity for any authority to declare it as an evidence property before it could view in the Custodian. In the said cases it was further held that a person who was in possession of the property which had been allotted to him by the Managing Officer could not be regarded as a trespasser under Section 5(44) of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act and the provisions of Section 94 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956 cannot be invoked to disposes such a person from land allotted to him of which he is in possession.