SHRI RAM AGRAWAL Vs. UNION OF INDIA
HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN
Shri Ram Agrawal
UNION OF INDIA
Click here to view full judgement.
P.K.BANERJEE, J. -
(1.)THIS rule is directed against an order passed by the Central Government on September 10. 1975, through its delegated authority viz, Commissioner -cum Surety to the Government, Department of Rehabilitation, Rajasthan, Jaipur, in a case under Section 33 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act of 1954.
(2.)THE brief facts of the case are that the opposite parties, Asa and Ami Khan, alleged to be the sons of one Suleman are residents of the village Parlika, Tehsil Nohar, Distt. Ganganagar. since prior to the partition of India before 1947. It is a leged further, that Suleman was in possession of Khasra Nos. 4,0 and 411 measuring about 39 bighas and 12 biswas of land at the said village. It is alleged that the area was declared evacuee property on the eve of partition and consequently was allotted in the year 1960 as evacuee property. Subsequently, Asa and Ami Khan' sons of Suleman applied to the Custodian General for the release and restoration of property under Section 27 of the Administration of Evacuee Property Act of 19.o and by order dated April 4,1963 the property was declared as non evacuee property and therefore, it is alleged, the petitioner applied for restoration of the property. The Chief Settlement Commissioner by the order dated May 28, 1975 rejected the claim of the petitioner. Hence the petitioner preferred a revisional application before the competent authority for an order of restoration from the opposite party who were in possession.
It is not disputed that the original allottee secured Sanad of temporary allotment in their favour on 25 -2 -0 -65. Subsequent to the issue of the Sanand the property was sold on 26 -6 -1965 and again on 23 -7 69. It is alleged that these sales were all void be initio. In view of the declaration by the competent authority under the Administration of Evacuee Property Act, the property is not an evacuee property and it was directed by the order which is under challenge, the property be restored to the petitioner, before the authority, as non -evacuee property. Being aggrieved by the said order, the present possessor of the property moved this Court to obtain the present rule.
(3.)IT must be stated, in the mean time the petitioner filed a proceeding before the competent authority for a declaration that the property is not an evacuee property. In that suit Asa and Ami Khan, sons of Suleman, were made party and the suit was decreed in favour of the petitioner herein and that suit has never been challenged. There were no affidavit by any of the parties in these proceedings. On these allegations the parties come to trial.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.