Untwalia, J. - (1.) This is an appeal by certificate by Shri Abdul Qadir from the judgment of the Rajasthan High Court dismissing his Writ Petition. The house in question belonged to one Mohammed Amin Khan. The appellant purchased the house from the said owner on 10-7-1948 for Rs.12,000. It appears that neither the appellant nor Mohammed Amin Khan was an evacuee within the meaning of the Administration of Evacuee Property Act, 1950, hereinafter called the Evacuee Property Act. But under some mistaken notion probably the appellant was treated as an evacuee and the house was declared as an evacuee property on 15-11-1951 in accordance with the Evacuee Property Act. After such declaration the question that the property was an evacuee property could not be reopened and became final. Upon that footing the appellant filed an application on 26-9-1953 under Section 16 (1) of the Evacuee Property Act, as the section then stood, for grant of a certificate. On 27-10-1956 the Central Government granted a certificate under the unamended provision of law contained in Section 16. Pursuant to the above the appellant made an application to the Assistant Custodian of Evacuee Property for restoration of the house under sub-sec. (2) of Section 16. The Asstt. Custodian respondent No.1 passed an order on 18-3-1957 restoring the house to the appellant. But before that Shri Ajjumal, respondent No. 2 had been inducted as a tenant in the house by the Custodian after it was declared as an evacuee property. The appellant was directed to take symbolic possession of the house allowing the said tenant to continue in its occupation on receipt of rent from him.
(2.) The appellant came to know later that on 11-11-1969 the Central Government passed an order under Section 20A of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954, hereinafter referred to as the Displaced Persons Act, whereby it was ordered that in respect of the house in question action be taken in accordance with the said provision of law. On 6-12-1960 the Central Government ordered that it had revised its order dated 11-11-1960 and the petitioner was entitled to compensation only under Section 20A of the Displaced Persons Act. In the Civil Suit filed by the appellant against Ajjumal it transpired that a sale deed had been executed in his favour as he was a displaced person in occupation of the house and the appellant was entitled to compensation only. He, therefore, filed a writ petition in the High Court to challenge the action of the Assistant Custodian, respondent No. 2 and the Union of India, respondent No. 3.
(3.) The writ case was contested by all the respondents and it was asserted that Ajjumal being a sitting allottee had to be rehabilitated and the appellant was entitled to compensation only.;