- (1.) D. K. Seth, J. The petitioners in this case have challenged the order dated 9th May, 1975 (Annexure 'xiv to the writ petition) dismissing the Revision Application filed under Section 133 of the Displaced Parsons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act ). The said revision was preferred against an order dated 25th April, 1975 dismissing the revision application filed under Section 24 of the said Act before the authorised Chief Settlement Commissioner by the petitioners against the order dated 29th January, 1975 passed on appeal preferred by the peti tioners being Annexure 'xi' to the writ petition arising out of the order dated 3rd September, 1974 passed by the Managing Officer on remand after the appeal preferred by respondents 5 and 6 was allowed by the appellate autho rity by order dated 21st April, 1973 in an appeal under Section 22 of the said Act preferred by respondents 5 and 6.
(2.) THE petitioner's case in the writ petition, inter alia, was that plots Nos. 215, 216, 217, 150 and 124 situate in village Gowli, tehsil Dhampur district Bijnor originally belonged to An oar Husain and others who were evacuees within the meaning of the said Act. THE said properties were record ed as evacuee properties during the consolidation proceedings, as would appear from Annexures '1-A' and '1-B' to the writ petition. Respondents 5 and 6 got allotted in their names in 1950 - some evacuee properties other than those dis puted plots. On 14th May, 1964, the above said plots were put to public auction in which the petitioners purchased the said plots upon depositing full price on the spot whereupon the Zonal Manager had issued receipts therefor (Annexures 'iii-A', 'iii-B' and 'iii-G' to the writ petition ). It was alleged by the petitioners that though possession of the plots were delivered to the petitioners but the sale certificates were not issued. THE petitioners had been visiting the office of concerned respondents. Ultimately on 1972, the petitioners were asked to submit the original receipts with affidavit before the Managing Officer, Lucknow. THE petitioners complied with the said requirement. After verifying the sale in favour of the petitioners, sale certificates were issued on 18th December, 1972 by the Managing Officer, Office of the Regional Settle ment Commissioner, U. P. Lucknow (Annexures 'iv-A' 'iv-B' and 'iv- C' to the writ petition ). THE said sale certificates were duly registered and the names of the petitioners were accordingly mutated in the revenue papers. At that point of time, respondents 5 and 6 preferred an appeal under Section 22 of the said Act and the same was allowed on 21st April, 1973 by the appellate authority (Annexure 'vii' to the writ petition) treating respondents 5 and 6 as allottees in respect of those plots and had remanded the case for fresh decision by the Managing Officer with the observations, namely, (i) Record not traceable ; (ii) Record to be reconstructed ; (iii) Acceptance of full price instead of earnest money was against the rules ; (iv) Sale in favour of the peti tioners was doubtful; (v) No acceptance letter was produced ; (vi) Allotment papers produced by respondents 5 and 6 (though it does not appear that respondents 5 and 6 had filed it by any record to prove the same); (vii) Appeal under Section 22 of the said Act is maintainable ; (viii) The Managing Officer should examine the matter again. On 1st August, 1973, the Managing Officer directed the Tehsildar, Dhampur to expunge the names of the petitioners from the records and to incorporate the name of respondents 5 and 6 therein. The petitioners in writ petition No. 7813 of 1973 challenged the said order dated 1st August, 1973 which was, however, disposed of by this Court with the observation that the Tehsildar will proceed in accordance with law.
(3.) HOWEVER, on remand, several dates were fixed which were successive ly adjourned. Ultimately the case was decided ex parte on 3rd September, 1974 treating respondents 5 and 6 as allottees of the plots in dispute. The petitioners learnt the said order in proceedings under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. In the said order dated 3rd September, 1974, it was held that the petitioners could not produce the documents of auction purchase by them nor they could produce any programme of the auction or any cost of earnest money or any letter of acceptance of the bid. The authenticity of the receipts were also not proved. The entries in Cash Books from the office could not be supplied. The petitioners could not get any certificate from the Treasury. The erstwhile Zonal Manager was involved in a case of embezzle ment and the receipts issued by him were not accounted for and whether the said receipts were forged or genuine could not be ascertained. Against the said order, the petitioners preferred an appeal on 14th October, 1974. The said appeal was dismissed on 29th January, 1975 confirming the order passed by under Section 24 of the said Act against the said order. The revision was decided against the petitioners on 25th April, 1975. The petitioners preferred a further revision under Section 33 of the said Act The said revision was also dismissed on 9th May, 1975.;