KEHAR SINGH KHUSHAL SINGH Vs. ASST. COMMR., REHABILITATION (DY. CUSTODIAN), PATIALA AND ANOTHER
LAWS(P&H)-1955-2-7
HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Decided on February 18,1955

Kehar Singh Khushal Singh Appellant
VERSUS
Asst. Commr., Rehabilitation (Dy. Custodian), Patiala And Another Respondents

JUDGEMENT

Mehar Singh, J. - (1.) THIS is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution by Kehar Singh against the Assistant Commissioner, Rehabilitation (Deputy Custodian), respondent 1, and the Director Rural Rehabilitation (Additional Custodian), respondent 2.
(2.) THE petitioner and one Wazir Singh, who are settled in village Dhanasu, are refugees from what is now Pakistan. There were two houses in the village No. 10 and 22 and the question of their allotment was confined between these two. The Assistant Custodian allotted house No. 10 to the petitioner on 13 -12 -1952, on the ground that he is of the two the biggest allottee of agricultural land. Wazir Singh went in appeal to the Deputy Custodian, respondent 1, who found that he was the biggest allottee of the two and so reversed the order of the Assistant Custodian, the result of which was that house No. 10 was allotted to Wazir Singh. The order of the Deputy Custodian is dated 18 -9 -1953. Against that order the petitioner went in revision before the Additional Custodian, respondent 2, who also came to the conclusion that Wazir Singh is of the two the biggest allottee and therefore by his order, dated 16 -7 -1954, dismissed the revision petition. In this petition the petitioner prays that the order of the Deputy Custodian be quashed and a writ of prohibition be issued against the respondents directing them not to evict him from house No. 10. The grounds urged by the petitioner are (a) that the Deputy Custodian passed the order against him without notice to him, and (b) that neither the Deputy Custodian nor the Additional Custodian had jurisdiction to pass the orders as they did.
(3.) IN his affidavit the Additional Custodian affirms that due notice was served upon the petitioner by the Deputy Custodian and in spite of service he did not appear. So the Deputy Custodian proceeded ex parte against him. He further affirms tint the question of want of jurisdiction was never raised by the petitioner either before him or before the Deputy Custodian. It is stated in the affidavit that of the two Wazir Singh is the biggest allottee as compared to the petitioner.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.