BANSHIDHAR Vs. APPELLATE OFFICER
HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN
Click here to view full judgement.
Dwarka Prasad, J. -
(1.)The orders passed by the competent officer, appointed under Section 4, Evacuee Interest (Separation) Act, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Separation Act') and the Appellate Officer, appointed under Section 13 of the Separation Act, directing that the composite property in dispute should be offered to respondent 2 Mst. Kakoo at the assessed price, in case she was willing to purchase the same, were challenged by the appellants by means of a writ petition in this Court. The writ petition was, however, dismissed by a learned single Judge of this Court by his order dt. Aug. 29, 1972 on the ground that the same was filed after a considerable delay and the appellants could not explain the aforesaid delay,
(2.)The circumstances in which this matter has come up before us may be briefly stated. Khasras Nos. 313, 363, 376 and 496, situated in village Nawan, Tehsil Hanumangarh in the District of Sri Ganganagar belonged to Noor Mohd. and his mother Mst. Kakoo, respondent 2. It was alleged that both Noor Mohd. and Mst. Kakoo had migrated to Pakistan as a result of civil disturbances and had become evacuees. However, Mst. Kakoo claimed that she never became an evacuee. Ultimately, on a claim petition filed by Mst. Kakoo the Deputy Custodian-General of Evacuee Property, by his order dated April 30, 1964 held that Noor Mohd, had become an evacuee while Mst. Kakoo was not an evacuee. Her non-evacuee interest was determined as 7/24, while the share of her son Noor Mohd. in the aforesaid agricultural lands was determined as 17/24 by the order passed on 16-12-1968 by the Competent Officer under the provisions of the Separation Act. It was held that the valuation of the evacuee interest was Rs. 15,000/-. However, by the order of the Competent Officer dated March 14, 1969 the evacuee interest in the composite property was offered to the displaced person allottee, ignoring the right of the claimant co-sharer, Mst. Kakoo. It may be mentioned here that the petitioner appellants claimed that 7 bighas 13 biswas of land out of Khasra No. 496 was allotted to Pamandas by the Managing Officer by his order dated 18-2-1960 and that the petitioner appellants were the legal representatives of Pamandas allottee.
(3.)Mst. Kakoo filed an appeal against the order passed by the Competent Officer on Mar. 14, 1969. The Appellate Officer allowed the appeal by his order dt. 2-91971 and held that in accordance with the provisions of Rule 11B(c)(i) of the Rules framed under the Separation Act, the entire evacuee interest should have been offered to the non-evacuee co-sharer, namely Mst. Kakoo. It was also held by the Appellate Officer that the present appellants could not dispute the valuation of the evacuee interest, as determined by the Competent Officer, by way of cross-objections. He also set aside the transfer of 7 bighas 13 biswas of land to the appellants. After the case came back to the Competent Officer, he proceeded to re-determine the value of the evacuee share, which was 17/24 out of the agricultural lands specified above. By his order dt. 28-10-1971, the Competent Officer re-determined the value of the evacuee share as Rs. 52,850/- and offered the entire evacuee share to the non-evacuee co-sharer, Mst. Kakoo subject to payment of the balance amount of Rs. 37,435/-. Once again Mst. Kakoo preferred an appeal against the re-determination of the value of the evacuee share. The appeal preferred by Mst. Kakoo was allowed by the Appellate Officer by his order dated March 6, 1972 and it was held that the competent officer was not entitled to re-value the evacuee interest and thus the order passed by the Competent Officer dt. 28-10-1971 was set aside.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.