- (1.) This appeal, we hope, is the finale of protracted litigation, over period of forty years between two displaced persons from Pakistan, regarding transfer of an evacuee property under their occupation since August, 1947. One of them has a 'verified claim' in respect of the property left by him in Pakistan and is entitled to compensation whereas the other is a 'nonclaimant'.
(2.) The question for consideration before us is whether the claimant has the right to get whole of the property transferred to him to the exclusion of the non-claimant.
(3.) The facts necessary are as under: Jagat Singh and Raghbir Singh on migration from Pakistan as displaced persons occupied in 1947 evacuee property No. 46 in the town of Mandi, Himachal Pradesh. It is not disputed that the two families are in possession of separate portions of the property which they are using as independent units. Raghbir Singh had a verified claim in respect of the property left by him in Pakistan whereas Jagat Singh was a non-claimant. Jagat Singh died on September 17, 1963 and his son Santokh Singh came on the scene as his successor. Mr. P. P. Rao, learned counsel appearing for Santokh Singh wanted to bring on record some documents to show that his client has also become a claimant as the claim in respect of his property left in Pakistan was got verified in the year 1978. We are not inclined to take these documents into consideration at this late stage. All the courts below treated Jagat Singh as non-claimant and we propose to proceed on the same basis. 4. By an agreement dated August 27, 1959 property numbering 46 at Mandi was transferred to Raghbir Singh and thereafter he applied for the demarcation of the same. Meanwhile the portion of the property in possession of Santokh Singh was numbered as 46A by the Department and was transferred to him by an agreement dated June 27, 1964. In response to his application for demarcation Raghbir Singh was told that only the portion in his possession, and not the entire property, was transferred to him. Feeling aggrieved he filed a revision petition under S. 24 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954 (hereinafter called 'the Act). Certain discrepancies in valuation and demarcation regarding the property were noticed and as such the department also made a reference to the Chief Settlement Commissioner to initiate suo motu proceedings for cancelling both the transfers in the name of Raghbir Singh and Santokh Singh. Suo motu revision and the revision filed by Raghbir Singh were heard and decided by Shri K. L. Wason, Chief Settlement Commissioner on February 24, 1968. He set aside the transfer of portion 46A in favour of Santokh Singh and ordered the transfer of whole of the property in favour of Raghbir Singh. Santokh Singh challenged the order before the Central Government by an application under S. 33 of the Act, which was heard by Shri Rajni Kant who by an order dated September 6, 1968 set aside the transfer in favour of Raghbir Singh also and remanded the case for fresh decision after hearing both the parties. Raghbir Singh challenged the order of Shri Rajni Kant by way of Civil Writ Petition 142 of 1968 which was allowed by the learned single Judge on August 6, 1970 and the order of Shri Rajni Kant was set aside. The Letters Patent Bench by its judgment dated August 31, 1978 upheld the order of the learned single Judge but left the merits to be decided afresh by Shri Rajni Kant or his successor in office. Thereafter, in terms of the High Court order, the matter was heard afresh by Shri Gulab I. Ajwani and by his order dated February 12, 1975 he came to the conclusion that the property was divisible and both the parties being in occupation since 1947 he directed that the portions of property in occupation of Raghbir Singh and Santokh Singh respectively be transferred to them. While recording the finding that the property was divisible Shri Ajwani observed as under : "It is evident that the 2 persons, S/ Shri Raghbir Singh and Santokh Singh, have been living in this property for several years and have evidently found it convenient to do so. The point made by Shri Mukhi that the property was indivisible would not appear to be correct or borne out by the record. The findings or observations of the Authorised Chief Settlement Commissioner in his order dated 27-2-68 'the property was not divisible one' would also appear not to be borne out from the record. One wonders whence he got this impression of indivisibility of the property ..... On the other hand, in his report dated 16-8-66, the Distt. Rent and Managing Officer has referred to Shri Santokh Singh claiming to be an occupant of a separate portion and according to Shri Santokh Singh, a fresh line plan had been prepared in 1958 dividing property No. 46 into 2 portions with the value of Rs. 2452/ - and Rs. 3,967/ - occupied by the parties mentioned in the note dated 16-8-66, recorded by the Managing Officer. The Managing Officer has added ".......but by division of property further complications have come into picture, as Shri Raghbir Singh was one of the occupants of the portion which has been transferred to Shri Santokh Singh. He was not occupying any room in the other portion of the property, which is desired by Shri Santokh Singh to be transferred to Shri Raghbir Singh." I do not see any where in Managing Officer's report that the property has been shown to be indivisible. Also the "complications" mentioned have not been spelt out in the report of the Managing Officer ..... On the other hand, against the foregoing material, in my view, the Valuation Unit's report, which is available on record, helps to decide this case in a fair/ reasonable manner. There is a remark at p. 6 of the valuation report, wherein it has been said: "Tenantwise is not desirable, but whole property can be divided into two portions as per line plan." Thus, the whole property has been shown to be divisible into 2 portions as per the line plan and the cost of 1st portion is shown to be Rs. 2,452/ - and of II portion at Rs. 3,967/-..... While It is correct that Shri Raghbir Singh is a claimant and, therefore, entitled to certain consideration for the transfer of property in his occupation against the compensation payable to him, it is also true that Shri Santokh Singh too is a displaced person and having been settled on this property for over a quarter century, it would appear manifestly unfair to dislodge/ unsettle him at this distance of time after he had fought legal battles for ascertaining his rights and also allegedly applied some money in renovating/ keeping the property in a proper state of repairs. Shri Raghbir Singh is certainly getting his due advantage by way of facility to get the compensation due to him adjusted against the cost of the property sought to be conveyed to him ..... Shri Mukhi's assertion that the property is indivisible would appear not to be correct, particularly in view of the Technical (Valuation) Unit's report, which has been cited above.";