GANGADHAR Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN
LAWS(RAJ)-1952-8-15
HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN
Decided on August 22,1952

GANGADHAR Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF RAJASTHAN Respondents


Referred Judgements :-

RANGRAJ V. GRAM PANCHAYAT KHINWEL [REFERRED TO]
MADAN GOPAL KABRA VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
JEEWAN RAM VS. UNITED STATE OF RAJASTHAN [REFERRED TO]



Cited Judgements :-

MANOHAR LAL VS. CUSTODIAN RAJASTHAN JODHPUR [LAWS(RAJ)-1953-2-27] [REFERRED TO]
HAZARA SINGH AND S ISHAR SINGH VS. CUSTODIAN OF EVACUEE PROPERTY PEPSU [LAWS(P&H)-1959-9-7] [REFERRED TO]
MAHARAJA SHRI UMAID MILLS LTD VS. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL JAIPUR [LAWS(RAJ)-1954-9-20] [REFERRED TO]
RAMNIRANJAN KEDIA VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER [LAWS(RAJ)-1956-11-43] [REFERRED TO]
DAULAT RAM VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN [LAWS(RAJ)-1959-8-4] [REFERRED TO]
M/S. GAJANAND PHOOL CHAND VS. INCOME [LAWS(RAJ)-1975-8-38] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

Wanchoo, C.J. - (1.)This is an application by Gangadhar under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for a writ of certiorari and prohibition against an order of the Custodian of Evacuee Property, Rajasthan, and has arisen in the following circumstances.
(2.)On the basis of an anonymous petition dated the 7th October, 1948, two bullocks were seized by the Sub Inspector of Police at a 'mela' at Bharatpur. Enquiries started in connection with these bullocks, and it was said that they belonged to certain Muslims of village Sonoti, who had left for Pakistan. During the course of these enquiries, allegations were made that Gangadhar applicant and Prabhu, one of the opposite parties, who were the persons in, whose possession the two bullocks had been found, had looted the houses of Muslims of Sonoti along with others after these Muslims had run away. On these allegations, the Deputy Custodian of Evacuee Property started an enquiry about the alleged looting. Eventually, on the 22nd of September, 1950, the Deputy Custodian, Bharatpur, decided the matter. He ordered that the two bullocks should remain in the custody of the Supurddar, presumably with the idea that they would be sold up, and the proceeds credited to the Evacuee Property Fund. He further ordered that Gangadhar and Prabhu should pay Rs. 3946/-, which he assessed as the value of the property that had been looted by them. It may be mentioned that except for these two bullocks, no property of any kind was ever found in the possession of Gangadhar or Prabhu.
(3.)Aggrieved by this order, the applicant went in appeal to the Custodian, who decided it on the 16th of March, 1951. So far as the payment of Rs. 3946/- was concerned, the Custodian came to the conclusion that there was not sufficient evidence to warrant the making of that order, and that further enquiries should be made in the matter. So far as the two bullocks were concerned, the order of the Deputy Custodian was upheld, but though there was no such request before the Custodian, he varied it and ordered that Rs. 1200/- should be recovered from the applicant. The present application was made in November, 1951, when the Deputy Custodian started realising the sum of Rs. 1200 as arrears of land revenue in September, 1951.


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.