JUDGEMENT
K.KANNAN,J. -
(1.) THE writ petition challenges the order passed by the Financial Commissioner on 12.05.1987 declining the
petitioner's claim for restoration of a property under Section 16
of the Administration of Evacuee Property Act on the ground
that he had only temporarily migrated to Utter Pradesh at the
time of partition and the property was not an evacuee property
to be liable for distribution in the manner referred to under the
provisions of the Administration of Evacuee Property Act. The
Financial Commissioner held that the petitioners were really
possessing the land in village Zabti Chhapara and Nabiabad but
since the land has been disposed of by the Government, the
restoration cannot be considered especially in view of the
abrogation of Section 20A of the Act.
(2.) I hold the finding to be erroneous. In all cases where a property is claimed by any evacuee or any other person claiming
to be an heir of evacuee. If the property had been wrongly
assumed as an evacuee property, the Government cannot be
said to have lost its power for restoration of such property. If
the petitioner was found to be the owner and if the Financial
Commissioner had also observed that the petitioner's case was
genuine, in my view that itself ought to have prevailed on his
decision to order restoration. Even if it were to be contended
that Section 16 itself will avail only to either an evacuee or
evacuee property so called and the petitioner was never an
evacuee, he having not migrated to Pakistan, then I would hold
that justice requires that the property is restored to him, which
this Court will exercise in its power under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India.
The counsel for the petitioner states that he is interested in retaining only the property in Zabti Chhapara and
the property, which he owned at Nabiabad need not be recalled
and the same could be allowed to be in the hands of the
allottee. I see the fairness of the claim of the petitioner and
would modify the impugned order only insofar as it upholds the
contention of the petitioner in relation to the property in rect.
no.26 killa no.4 to 8, rect. no.39 killa no.1, 2, 9, 10, 12 & 19/2,
and rect. no.40 killa no.6, 7 & 15/1 situated in village Zabti
Chhapara. The claim in relation to the property situated in
Nabiabad is disallowed since the petitioner himself is not
pressing his relief as regards the same.
(3.) THE writ petition is allowed with the above directions. The necessary formalities for making the mutations or preparing
the Registry in the manner required under law shall be carried
out by the State as expeditiously as possible, preferably, within
a period of 12 weeks from the date of receipt of copy of the
order.;
Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.