Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Ibrahim Khan And Ors vs Chief Steel.Commis.Bikaner And Ors on 7 April, 2026
[2026:RJ-JD:14231]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 148/2001
Sukh Ram S/o Sh. Ganga Ram Solanki R/o New Laxmi Tara
Cinema, Nagaur
----Petitioner
Versus
1. Union Of India through Secretary, Ministry of Rehabilitation,
Jaisalmer House, Man Singh Road, New Delhi
2. The Chief Settlement Commissioner cum Divisional
Commissioner, Bikaner
3. Settlement Commissioner-cum-District Collector, Nagaur.
4. Managing Officer-cum-Tehsildar, Nagaur.
5. State of Rajasthan through Collector, Nagaur.
6. Municipal Board, Nagaur through its Executive Officer.
7. Legal Representatives of Faizu Khan :-
7/A. Smt. Shayada Banu W/o Late Faizu Khan.
7/B. Layakat Khan S/o Late Faizu Khan
7/B/1. Mst Bano Widow of Late Layakat Khan
7/B/2. Razak Khan S/o Late Layakat Khan
7/B/3. Rukhsana Bano D/o Late Layakat Khan
7/B/4. Anwar Khan S/o Late Layakat Khan
7/B/5. Mubarik S/o Late Layakat Khan
7/B/6. Rihana D/o Late Layakat Khan
7/C. Sokhat Khan S/o Late Faizu Khan.
7/D. Mustak Khan S/o Late Faizu Khan.
All resident of village Berikhard Tehsil Didwana,
Nagaur.
7/E. Mariam Banoo W/o Gulab Khan D/o Late Faizu Khan,
R/o Jajod Tehsil Laxmangarh, Nagaur.
7/F. Roshal Banoo W/o Poolekhan D/o Late Faizu Khan,
R/o Village Mavo Tehsil Didwana, Nagaur.
7/G. Sugara Banoo W/o Sokhat Khan D/o Late Faizu
Khan, R/o Village Mavo Tehsil Didwana, Nagaur.
8. Mrs. Adisa D/o Late Kalu Khan.
9. Mrs. Hasan D/o Late Kalu Khan.
10. Mrs. Mehbooba D/o Late Kalu Khan.
11. Mrs. Hanifa W/o Umrao Khan D/o Late Kalu Khan.
12. Babu Khan S/o Umrao Khan S/o Late Kalu Khan.
Respondents No. 8 to 12 R/o Kalu Khan ki Badi. outside
Delhi Gate, Nagaur.
13. Legal Representatives of Ibrahim Khan S/o Late Kalu Khan:-
13/1. Jariban Banoo W/o Late Ibrahim Khan, aged about
(D.B. SAW/183/2014 has been filed in this matter. Please refer the same for further orders)
(Uploaded onon08/04/2026
(Downloaded 08/04/2026atat10:30:30
08:51:30AM)
PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:14231] (2 of 58) [CW-148/2001]
years, R/o Kalu Khan Ki Badi, outside Delhi Gate,
Nagaur.
13/2. Madina Banoo W/o Nanu Khan D/o Late Ibrahim
Khan, aged about 40 years, R/o Village Siyas,
Tehsil Merta, Nagaur.
13/3. Ali Sher Khan S/o Late Late Ibrahim Khan, aged
about 38 years, R/o Kalu Khan ki Badi, outside
Delhi Gate, Nagaur.
13/4. Rubina Banoo W/o Hoshiyar Ali Khan D/o Late
Ibrahim Khan, aged about 35 years, R/o Village
Rathriyan Bas, Near Nai Masjid Ladnu, Nagaur.
13/5. Vaskar Banoo W/o Jahid Khan D/o Late Ibrahim
Khan, aged about 33 years, R/o Mohalla Kuchaman
City, Nagaur.
13/6. Nasrim Banoo W/o Guljar Khan D/o Late Ibrahim
Khan, aged about 31 years, R/o Jalupura, Near
Sikar Hotel, Jaipur.
13/7. Shamsher Khan S/o Late Ibrahim Khan, aged
about 29 years, R/o Kalu Khan ki Badi, outside
Delhi Gate, Nagaur.
13/8. Rafiq Khan S/o Late Ibrahim Khan, aged about 27
years, R/o Kalu Khan ki Badi, outside Delhi Gate,
Nagaur.
13/9. Mahmood Khan S/o Late Ibrahim Khan, aged about
25 years, R/o Kalu Khan ki Badi, outside Delhi
Gate, Nagaur.
13/10. Ashif Khan S/o Late Ibrahim Khan, aged about 17
years, through natural guardian Mother Jariban
Banoo R/o Kalu Khan ki Badi, outside Delhi Gate,
Nagaur.
14. Mohd. Kasim S/o Hazi Isa, R/o Kulsum Dairy Farm, Nagaur
15. Islammuddin S/o Mahmood, R/o Hamalo ka Mohalla, Nagaur.
16. Ramswaroop S/o Hukmi Chand Panwar, R/o Panwarron ka
Baas, Chenar, Nagaur.
17. Mohd. Iqbal S/o Mohd. Munif, R/o Hamalo ka Mohalla,
Nagaur,
18. Legal Representatives of Tulsi Ram S/o Shri Deepa Ram:-
18/1. Chanchal W/o Late Tulsi Ram aged 71 years.
18/2. Legal Representatives of Raja Ram S/o Late Tulsi
Ram:-
18/2/1. Chanda W/o Late Raja Ram aged 45 years.
18/2/2. Praveen S/o Late Raja Ram aged 28 years.
18/2/3. Chetan S/o Late Raja Ram aged 24 years.
18/2/4. Jitendra S/o Late Raja Ram aged 21 years.
18/2/5. Seema D/o Late Raja Ram aged 19 years.
18/3. Ramkumar S/o Late Tulsi Ram aged 44 years.
18/4. Pukhraj S/o Late Tulsi Ram aged 38 years. All
resident of Bassi Mohalla, Nagaur.
(D.B. SAW/183/2014 has been filed in this matter. Please refer the same for further orders)
(Uploaded onon08/04/2026
(Downloaded 08/04/2026atat10:30:30
08:51:30AM)
PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:14231] (3 of 58) [CW-148/2001]
18/5. Smt. Chanda W/o Murli Marothiya D/o Late Tulsi
Ram, R/o Teliyon ka Mohalla, Marwar Mundwa,
Nagaur.
18/6. Smt. Leela W/o Bajrang Lal Gehlot D/o Late Tulsi
Ram, R/o Begum Bazar, Hyderabad.
19. Legal representatives of Late Bhanwar Lal.
19/1. Smt Chauthi Devi W/o Late Shri Bhanwar Lal,
aged 70 years, R/o Panwaron ka baas, Chenar,
Distt. Nagaur.
19/2. Rajendra Singh Panwar S/o Late Shri Bhanwar
Lal, aged 54 years, R/o Panwaron ka baas,
Chenar, Distt. Nagaur.
19/3. Narendra Panwar S/o Late Shri Bhanwar Lal, aged
51 years, R/o Panwaron ka baas, Chenar, Distt.
Nagaur.
-------Respondent
Connected With
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3854/2000
1. Legal Representatives of Ibrahim Khan S/o Late Kalu
Khan:-.
1/1. Jariban Banoo W/o Late Ibrahim Khan, aged about
years, R/o Kalu Khan Ki Badi, Outside Delhi Gate,
Nagaur.
1/2. Madina Banoo W/o Nanu Khan D/o Late Ibrahim
Khan, aged about 40 years, R/o Village Siyas, Tehsil
Merta, Nagaur.
1/3. Ali Sher Khan S/o Late Late Ibrahim Khan, aged
about 38 years, R/o Kalu Khan Ki Badi, Outside
Delhi Gate, Nagaur.
1/4. Rubina Banoo W/o Hoshiyar Ali Khan D/o Late
Ibrahim Khan, aged about 35 years R/o Village
Rathriyan Bas, Near Nai Masjid Ladnu, Nagaur.
1/5. Vaskar Banoo W/o Jahid Khan D/o Late Ibrahim
Khan, aged about 33 years, R/o Mohalla Kuchaman
City, Nagaur.
1/6. Nasrim Banoo W/o Guljar Khan D/o Late Ibrahim
Khan, aged about 31 years, R/o Jalupura, Near
Sikar Hotel, Jaipur.
1/7. Shamsher Khan S/o Late Ibrahim Khan, aged about
29 years, R/o Kalu Khan Ki Badi, Outside Delhi
Gate, Nagaur.
1/8. Rafiq Khan S/o Late Ibrahim Khan, aged about 27
years, R/o Kalu Khan Ki Badi, Outside Delhi Gate,
Nagaur.
1/9. Mahmood Khan S/o Late Ibrahim Khan, aged about
25 years, R/o Kalu Khan Ki Badi, Outside Delhi
(D.B. SAW/183/2014 has been filed in this matter. Please refer the same for further orders)
(Uploaded onon08/04/2026
(Downloaded 08/04/2026atat10:30:30
08:51:30AM)
PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:14231] (4 of 58) [CW-148/2001]
Gate, Nagaur.
1/10. Ashif Khan S/o Late Ibrahim Khan, aged about 17
years, through natural guardian mother Jariban
Banoo, R/o Kalu Khan Ki Badi, Outside Delhi Gate,
Nagaur.
2. Legal Representatives of Tulsi Ram S/o Shri Deepa Ram:-
2/1. Chanchal W/o Late Tulsi Ram, aged 71 years.
2/2. Legal Representatives of Raja Ram S/o Late Tulsi
Ram:-
2/2/1 Chanda W/o Late Raja Ram, aged 45 years.
2/2/2. Praveen S/o Late Raja Ram, aged 28 years.
2/2/3. Chetan S/o Late Raja Ram, aged 24 years.
2/2/4. Jitendra S/o Late Raja Ram, aged 21 years.
2/2/5. Seema D/o Late Raja Ram, aged 19 years.
2/3. Ramkumar S/o Late Tulsi Ram aged 44 years.
2/4. Pukhraj S/o Late Tulsi Ram, aged 38 years.
All R/o Bassi Mohalla, Nagaur.
2/5. Smt. Chanda W/o Murli Marothiya D/o Late Tulsi
Ram, R/o Teliyon Ka Mohalla, Marwar Mundwa,
Nagaur.
2/6. Smt. Leela W/o Bajrang Lal Gehlot D/o Late Tulsi
Ram, R/o Begum Bazar, Hyderabad.
3. Legal Representatives of Late Bhanwar Lal.
3/1. Smt. Chauthi Devi W/o Late Shri Bhanwar Lal, aged
70 years, R/o Panwaron Ka bass, Chenar, District
Nagaur.
3/2. Rajendra Singh Panwar S/o Late Shri Bhanwar Lal,
aged 54 years, R/o Panwaron Ka Bass, Chenar,
District Nagaur.
3/3. Narendra Panwar S/o Late Shri Bhanwar Lal, aged
51 years, R/o Panwaron Ka Bass, Chenar, District
Nagaur.
----Petitioners
Versus
1. Union of India through Secretary, Ministry of
Rehabilitation, Jaisalmer House, Man Singh Road, New Delhi.
2. Settlement Commissioner-cum-District Collector, Nagaur.
3. Managing Officer-cum-Tehsildar, Nagaur.
4. State of Rajasthan through Collector, Nagaur.
5. Municipal Board, Nagaur through its Executive Officer.
6. Legal Represetnatives of Faizu Khan:-
6/A. Smt. Shayada Banu W/o Late Faizu Khan.
6/B. Shokat Ali S/o Late Faizu Khan.
6/C. Layakat Khan S/o Late Faizu Khan.
6/D. Mustak Khan S/o Late Faizu Khan.
(D.B. SAW/183/2014 has been filed in this matter. Please refer the same for further orders)
(Uploaded onon08/04/2026
(Downloaded 08/04/2026atat10:30:30
08:51:30AM)
PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:14231] (5 of 58) [CW-148/2001]
All resident of Village Berikhard Tehsil Didwana,
Nagaur.
6/E. Mariam Banoo W/o Gulab Khan D/o Late Faizu
Khan, R/o Jajod Tehsil Laxmangarh, Nagaur.
6/F. Roshal Banoo W/o Poolekhan D/o Late Faizu Khan,
R/o Village Mavo, Tehsil Didwana, Nagaur.
6/G. Sugara Banoo W/o Sokhat Khan D/o Late Faizu
Khan, R/o Village Mavo, Tehsil Didwana, Nagaur.
7. Mrs. Adisa D/o Late Kalu Khan.
8. Mrs. Hasan D/o Late Kalu Khan.
9. Mrs. Mahabooba D/o Late Kalu Khan.
10. Mrs. Hanifa W/o Umrao Khan D/o Late Kalu Khan.
11. Babu Khan S/o Umrao Khan S/o Late Kalu Khan.
Respondents No.6 to 11 R/o Kalu Khan Ki Badi, Outside
Delhi Gate, Nagaur.
12. Sukh Ram S/o Ganga Ram Solanki, R/o Kulsum Dairy
Farm, Nagaur.
13. Islammuddin S/o Mahmood, R/o Hamalo Ka Mohalla,
Nagaur.
14. Mohd. Iqbal S/o Mohd. Munif, R/o Hamalo Ka Mohalla,
Nagaur.
15. Ramswaroop S/o Hukmi Chand Panwar, R/o Panwarron Ka
Baas, Chenar, Nagaur.
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ramit Mehta, Adv. with
Mr. Tarun Dudia, Adv.
Mr. Aman Khan, Adv.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Narendra Singh Rajpurohit, AAG
Dr. Sachin Acharya, Sr. Adv. with
Mr. Chayan Bothra, Adv.
Mr. Sarthak Asopa, Adv.
(For Municipal Board,Nagaur)
Mr. Bhanu Pratap Bohra, Adv. with
Mr. Vaibhav Bhansali, Adv.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MUNNURI LAXMAN
Judgment DATE OF CONCLUSION OF ARGUMENTS : 08/01/2026 DATE ON WHICH ORDER IS RESERVED : 08/01/2026 FULL ORDER OR OPERATIVE PART : FULL ORDER DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 07/04/2026 (D.B. SAW/183/2014 has been filed in this matter. Please refer the same for further orders) (Uploaded onon08/04/2026 (Downloaded 08/04/2026atat10:30:30 08:51:30AM) PM) [2026:RJ-JD:14231] (6 of 58) [CW-148/2001]
1) The present writ petitions, being Petition Nos. 1548/2001 and 3854/2000, challenge the common order dated 03.10.2000 passed by the Divisional Commissioner, Bikaner in Revision Case Nos. 3/1999 and 4/1999, whereby Revision Case No. 3/1999 was dismissed and Revision Case No. 4/1999 was allowed. Consequently, the order dated 31.05.1999 passed by the District Magistrate-cum-Settlement Commissioner, Nagaur, and the order dated 15.06.1972 passed by the Managing Officer, Nagaur, were set aside.
2) The issue involved in both the writ petitions is one and the same. Accordingly, both the writ petitions are being decided by this common order. The Writ Petition No.148/2001 has been filed by Sukhram, the purchaser of a part of the subject property involved in the present litigation. He purchased the land from Tulsiram by way of a registered sale deed. Tulsiram, in turn, had purchased the said land from Kalu Khan on the strength of a Sanad issued by the Managing Officer under the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act of 1954"). The Writ Petition No.854/2000 has been filed by Ibrahim Khan, the son of Kalu Khan ( to whom the Sanad was granted under the Act of 1954) along with Tulsiram and Bhanwarlal, who are purchasers from Kalu Khan by registered sale deeds on the basis of the said Sanad. During the pendency of the writ petitions, it appears that all the original petitioners have passed away and their legal heirs were brought on record.
3) At the outset, it may be noted that the present litigation has a checkered history spanning over 53 years. Such prolonged (D.B. SAW/183/2014 has been filed in this matter. Please refer the same for further orders) (Uploaded onon08/04/2026 (Downloaded 08/04/2026atat10:30:30 08:51:30AM) PM) [2026:RJ-JD:14231] (7 of 58) [CW-148/2001] duration is attributable to multiple remand orders passed by various appellate and revisional authorities. The present proceedings arise out of suo motu proceedings initiated by the District Magistrate-cum-Settlement Commissioner, Nagaur, against the grant of Sanad dated 15.06.1972 by the Managing Officer in respect of properties forming part of the compensation pool under the Act of 1954. The District Magistrate-cum-Settlement Commissioner is the appellate authority under Section 22 of the Act of 1954 against orders passed by the Settlement Officer or Managing Officer under the Act. The foundation for the suo motu action of the District Magistrate-cum-Settlement Commissioner was a notice dated 07.10.1972. The contents of the said notice indicate that the suo motu proceedings were initiated for cancellation of the Sanad granted by the Managing Officer on the grounds that the subject properties were not custodian lands and that the allottee was not in possession of the lands for which the Sanad had been granted. On these grounds, a notice dated 07.10.1972 was issued to show cause as to why the Sanad should not be cancelled. The said notice was issued only to Kalu Khan, to whom the Sanad had been granted. In response to the said notice, the applicant, Kalu Khan, sought an adjournment of the proceedings on the ground of his illness. However, the District Magistrate-cum-Settlement Commissioner, by order dated 18.10.1972, cancelled the Sanad by merely noting the request made by Kalu Khan regarding his illness, without examining the nature of the lands or whether the ground for adjournment was genuine.
(D.B. SAW/183/2014 has been filed in this matter. Please refer the same for further orders) (Uploaded onon08/04/2026 (Downloaded 08/04/2026atat10:30:30 08:51:30AM) PM) [2026:RJ-JD:14231] (8 of 58) [CW-148/2001]
4) The order dated 18.10.1972 passed by the District Collector-cum-Settlement Commissioner was assailed by Kalu Khan before the Revenue Appellate Authority, Jodhpur. The Revenue Appellate Authority, by its order dated 25.01.1974, allowed the appeal on the ground that the District Magistrate had acted in the capacity of a revenue officer, whereas the subject matter pertained to a Sanad granted under the Act of 1954. It was held that the District Magistrate had no jurisdiction to entertain proceedings relating to orders passed under the Act of 1954. The State, represented by the District Collector, challenged the said order before the Board of Revenue. The Board of Revenue, by its order dated 25.01.1974, allowed the appeal, holding that the District Magistrate had acted not in his capacity as a revenue officer but as a Settlement Commissioner, who is the competent authority under the Act of 1954 to examine orders passed by the Managing Officer. It was further held that the proceedings before the Revenue Appellate Authority were without jurisdiction, and consequently, the said order was set aside. Liberty was, however, granted to approach the Chief Settlement Commissioner, Rajasthan, Jaipur. Thereafter, Kalu Khan filed a revision petition before the Chief Settlement Commissioner under Section 24 of the Act of 1954, assailing the order of the District Collector-cum- Settlement Commissioner. The Chief Settlement Commissioner, after hearing both parties, Kalu Khan and the representative of the District Collector, allowed the revision. It was held that a minimum notice period of 15 days as is required under Rule 117 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Rules, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as "the Rules of 1955") has not been (D.B. SAW/183/2014 has been filed in this matter. Please refer the same for further orders) (Uploaded onon08/04/2026 (Downloaded 08/04/2026atat10:30:30 08:51:30AM) PM) [2026:RJ-JD:14231] (9 of 58) [CW-148/2001] followed. In the present case, the notice issued to Kalu Khan was only for one week. It was also noted that Kalu Khan who had sought an adjournment on the ground of illness was not properly dealt with. Accordingly, the order was set aside, and the matter was remanded to the District Collector-cum-Settlement Commissioner with a direction to pass a fresh order after hearing the legal representatives of Kalu Khan and Tulsiram.
5) In consequence of the remand order, fresh proceedings were commenced before the District Magistrate-cum-Settlement Commissioner. The Settlement Commissioner, after hearing the Nagar Palika, Nagaur, and the legal representatives of Kalu Khan, Tulsiram and Bhanwarlal, allowed the proceedings and set aside the Sanad, holding that the Managing Officer, in connivance with Kalu Khan and the purchasers, had obtained the Sanad. While setting aside the Sanad, it was noted in the order that as per the records, 149 bighas and 8 biswas of land was recorded on the names of Wali Mohammad and Mohammad Ramzan Qazi. Out of this, an extent of 68 bighas and 2 biswas was declared evacuee property. Further, land measuring 40 bighas and 12 biswas in the name of Mohammad Ramzan was recorded as khatedari land of Kalu Khan, and the remaining land was recorded as gair mumkin, including Agor, road, and rasta.
6) The order of the District Collector-cum-Settlement Commissioner was again challenged before the Divisional Commissioner, Bikaner, under Section 20(3) of the Act of 1954. The Divisional Commissioner, Bikaner, by order dated 16.03.1999, allowed the proceedings and set aside the order of the Settlement Commissioner dated 29.06.1998, and once again remanded the (D.B. SAW/183/2014 has been filed in this matter. Please refer the same for further orders) (Uploaded onon08/04/2026 (Downloaded 08/04/2026atat10:30:30 08:51:30AM) PM) [2026:RJ-JD:14231] (10 of 58) [CW-148/2001] matter for fresh consideration. The grounds for setting aside the order were: (i) the parties were not properly heard; (ii) the District Collector failed to determine whether the disputed land formed part of the compensation pool; and (iii) the old and new survey numbers were not properly compared and appreciated. Pursuant to the second remand order, the District Magistrate-cum- Settlement Commissioner again took up the proceedings after hearing all the parties. By order dated 31.05.1999, he found that the lands bearing Khasra Nos. 558, 559, 560, and 560/1, admeasuring 149 bighas and 8 biswas, located in Nagaur (hereinafter referred as Subject Properties) were the khatedari lands of Wali Mohammad and Mohammad Ramzan Qazi. On the basis of the above findings, it was recorded by the Patwari in the revenue records that the lands were evacuee properties, which was further corroborated by the Girdawari entries for Samvat 2002-2008. The Settlement Commissioner also took note of the list of custodian lands and consequently found that Kalu Khan was in occupation of the lands. Accordingly, the lands were ordered to be sold for a consideration of Rs. 2,524.24/-. While confirming the Sanad in respect of a major portion of the land, he further directed that the land claimed to have been allotted to the Nagar Palika, Nagaur, be verified to ascertain whether such transfer had taken place prior to or subsequent to the grant of the Sanad. This direction was issued to the revenue authorities working in the office of the District Collector cum Settlement Commissioner. He further directed that the open lands situated along side of the road passing through the lands covered under the Sanad shall not be claimed by the Sanad holders or their successors-in-interest.
(D.B. SAW/183/2014 has been filed in this matter. Please refer the same for further orders) (Uploaded onon08/04/2026 (Downloaded 08/04/2026atat10:30:30 08:51:30AM) PM) [2026:RJ-JD:14231] (11 of 58) [CW-148/2001]
7) Ibrahim Khan, Tulsiram, and Bhanwarlal, who were the writ petitioners in C.W. No. 3854/2000, have challenged certain directions contained in the order dated 31.05.1999 passed by the District Magistrate-cum-Settlement Commissioner by filing Revision Case No. 3/1999. Surprisingly, one Ramswaroop, who claimed to have purchased a small portion of the disputed lands from Tulsiram, filed a revision against the said order of the District Collector cum Settlement Commissioner, which was registered as Revision Case No.4/1999. An important fact to be noted is that the District Magistrate-cum-Settlement Commissioner, at whose instance the suo motu proceedings were initiated, which form the foundation of the present litigation, and who had been contesting the matter on behalf of the Government, did not pursue any further proceedings against the order dated 31.05.1999. The Municipality, i.e., Nagar Palika, also did not challenge the said order of the Settlement Commissioner. The Divisional Commissioner, by a common order dated 03.10.2000, dismissed the revision petition filed by the present petitioners and allowed the revision filed by Ramswaroop, thereby setting aside the order dated 31.05.1999 passed by the District Collector-cum-Settlement Commissioner. Consequently, the order dated 15.06.1972 passed by the Managing Officer granting the Sanad was also set aside. In this background, the present writ petitions have been filed.
8) The case set up by Kalu Khan, his legal heirs, and the subsequent purchasers is that the lands bearing Khasra Nos.558 (7 bighas 16 biswas), 559 (20 bighas 19 biswas), 560 (120 bighas 12 biswas), and 560/1 (well), admeasuring total 149 bighas and (D.B. SAW/183/2014 has been filed in this matter. Please refer the same for further orders) (Uploaded onon08/04/2026 (Downloaded 08/04/2026atat10:30:30 08:51:30AM) PM) [2026:RJ-JD:14231] (12 of 58) [CW-148/2001] 08 biswas, situated at Nagaur, belonged to Wali Mohammad and Mohammad Ramzan Qazi. It is stated that they migrated to Pakistan in the year 1947. Upon their migration, proceedings were initiated under Section 7 of the Administration of Evacuee Property Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act of 1950") for declaring the properties owned by them at various places, including the land in dispute, as evacuee properties. Initially, on the basis of admissions, the subject lands were declared as evacuee properties by order dated 18.01.1951. Subsequently, the claims of third properties relating to various properties owned by Wali Mohammad and Mohammad Ramzan Qazi were dealt with independently, including the claim made by Kalu Khan.
9) The District Assistant Custodian, by order dated 04.08.1955, rejected the claims made by various persons, including Kalu Khan. Kalu Khan had set up claims in respect of subject properties at various places, including a claim of having invested money in the development of the property. Similarly, one Karimuddin, who claimed to have an interest in property situated at Ramsia, also pursued his claim. He challenged the proceedings of Asst.Custodian before the Custodian of Evacuee Property, Rajasthan. The Custodian, by order dated 19.03.1956, dismissed his appeal.
10) It is also claimed that the subject lands were notified under Section 7 of the Act of 1950 as evacuee properties, which included the present disputed land (Annexure-13). Subsequently, by a general notification issued under Section 12 of the Act of 1954, the evacuee properties were acquired by the Central (D.B. SAW/183/2014 has been filed in this matter. Please refer the same for further orders) (Uploaded onon08/04/2026 (Downloaded 08/04/2026atat10:30:30 08:51:30AM) PM) [2026:RJ-JD:14231] (13 of 58) [CW-148/2001] Government for public purposes, namely for the relief and rehabilitation of displaced persons, including the payment of compensation to such persons. Thereafter, these properties were made part of the compensation pool created under Section 14 of the Act of 1954. The Managing Officer was placed in charge of the management of the compensation pool of evacuee properties. It is further claimed that Kalu Khan's possession was uninterrupted and that his occupation was protected. In fact, a notice of eviction was also issued to him; however, such proceedings were not carried forward, and he continued to remain in possession of the lands, which had been declared evacuee properties. Subsequently, they formed part of the compensation pool. Despite the acquisition of the evacuee properties for the public purpose of relief and rehabilitation of displaced persons, including the payment of compensation, Kalu Khan was remained in continuous possession of the properties. Even after such acquisition, possession was never taken over by the Managing Officer. It is also claimed that as per the policy of the Rehabilitation Department, pending cases were to be dealt with by the State Government on a commission basis, and directions were issued to recover the prices of the lands as fixed by the Regional Commissioner, Rajasthan. Pursuant to this policy, Kalu Khan is stated to have made an application on 06.05.1972 for allotment of the lands at the price fixed by the Regional Commissioner. The Managing Officer, upon collecting the price of the lands covered under the Sanad, issued the Sanad dated 15.06.1972. It is contended that the said Sanad was issued in accordance with due process, in terms of the policy decisions of the Union of India, the State Government, and the authorities (D.B. SAW/183/2014 has been filed in this matter. Please refer the same for further orders) (Uploaded onon08/04/2026 (Downloaded 08/04/2026atat10:30:30 08:51:30AM) PM) [2026:RJ-JD:14231] (14 of 58) [CW-148/2001] under the Act of 1954; and therefore, such an order ought not to have been interfered with by the District Magistrate cum Settlement Commssioner or any other authority in exercise of suo motu powers.
11) The initial stand of the State Government as represented by the District Magistrate-cum-Settlement Commissioner as reflected from the suo moto proceedings initiated by notice dated 07.10.1972, was that the subject lands in the present litigation were not custodian lands and that Kalu Khan was never in possession of the same. In effect, the State Government took the position that the lands were Government lands and remained in its possession. Subsequently, the stand of the District Magistrate- cum-Settlement Commissioner, representing the State, was that the old Khasra Nos. 558, 559, 560, and 560/1, admeasuring 149 bighas and 08 biswas, were assigned new Khasra numbers pursuant to the resettlement carried out in the year 1964. It was stated that new Khasra Nos. 568, 569, 570, 571, 578, and 582, admeasuring 68 bighas and 2 biswas, were recorded as custodian lands; further, new Khasra Nos. 579, 580, and 581, admeasuring 40 bighas and 12 biswas, were recorded as khatedari lands in the name of Kalu Khan; and new Khasra Nos. 594 (11 bighas), 564 (21 bighas), 565 (5 bighas), 583 (3 bighas), and 626 (12 biswas), admeasuring in total 48 bighas and 12 biswas, were recorded as gair mumkin (including Agor).
12) Subsequently, the State, represented by the District Collector, had taken yet another stand that the entire lands comprised in the old survey numbers corresponding to the new (D.B. SAW/183/2014 has been filed in this matter. Please refer the same for further orders) (Uploaded onon08/04/2026 (Downloaded 08/04/2026atat10:30:30 08:51:30AM) PM) [2026:RJ-JD:14231] (15 of 58) [CW-148/2001] survey numbers, admeasuring 149 bighas and 8 biswas, were evacuee properties, and that prior to such declaration, they were the khatedari lands of Wali Mohammad and Mohammad Ramzan. It was further stated that the lands were recorded as evacuee properties by the Patwari on the basis of a letter dated 09.02.1959 received from the District Assistant Custodian, and that a letter dated 06.11.1965 issued by the Regional Settlement Commissioner also contained a list of custodian lands part of compensation pool, including the subject lands admeasuring 149 bighas and 08 biswas and Kalu Khan was shown as an occupant. It was also stated that a portion of the land had been allotted to the Nagar Palika, Nagaur.
13) Initially, stand of the District Magistrate-cum-Settlement Commissioner and Nagarpalika were that 140 bighas of land was allotted to the Nagar Palika; however, this was subsequently changed to the effect that only the land comprised in Khasra No. 564 had been allotted. There was lack of consistency in the stand of the State Government with regard to its rights over the lands in question. The State has taken contradictory positions from time to time either denying or accepting various proceedings and actions, without maintaining any coherence or consistency in their stand.
14) The stand of the Nagar Palika is also inconsistent. At one stage, it was asserted that the land had been allotted in the year 1970 and that possession was delivered immediately thereafter; at another stage, it was stated that the allotment was made in 1971 and possession was delivered in the same year. At one point, it was claimed that 140 bighas had been allotted; at another stage, it was asserted that the entire lands in Khasra No. 564 had (D.B. SAW/183/2014 has been filed in this matter. Please refer the same for further orders) (Uploaded onon08/04/2026 (Downloaded 08/04/2026atat10:30:30 08:51:30AM) PM) [2026:RJ-JD:14231] (16 of 58) [CW-148/2001] been allotted. It was further claimed that the allotted lands were developed into plots with the approval of the Town Planning authorities, several blocks were sold, and one block remained unsold despite preparation of plans. The Nagar Palika has also taken the stand that the subject lands were never evacuee properties and was never acquired under the provisions relating to the compensation pool, and they were classified gair mumkin lands. On this basis, it has been contended that the Sanad was wrongly issued by the Managing Officer in favour of Kalu Khan and its cancellation was justified, and that no interference is called for.
15) Heard the arguments of learned counsel for the parties contesting the litigation.
16) The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners have contended that the subject lands originally belonged to Wali Mohammad and Mohammad Ramzan Qazi, who migrated to Pakistan; whereupon proceedings were initiated under the provisions of the Act of 1950, and the lands were declared evacuee properties. Entries to this effect were also made in the revenue records, and the lands were subsequently notified as evacuee properties in the Rajasthan Gazette. Although the lands were declared evacuee properties on account of the migration of khatedars to Pakistan, the possession of Kalu Khan continued until the grant of the Sanad. It is also submitted that the evacuee properties were subsequently acquired under Section 12 of the Act of 1954 and made part of the compensation pool and such lands were under the management of the Managing Officer. The Managing Officer was competent to transfer such lands, subject to the rules and the decisions of the competent authorities. It is (D.B. SAW/183/2014 has been filed in this matter. Please refer the same for further orders) (Uploaded onon08/04/2026 (Downloaded 08/04/2026atat10:30:30 08:51:30AM) PM) [2026:RJ-JD:14231] (17 of 58) [CW-148/2001] stated that the lands were accordingly transferred by way of allotment after collecting the sale consideration, in terms of the decision taken in the meetings between the Central Government and the State Government officials, wherein the recovery of the price of the lands from the person in the occupancy was fixed.
17) It is also contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the entire suo motu proceedings initiated by the District Magistrate-cum-Settlement Commissioner are without jurisdiction. It is submitted that the Settlement Commissioner, being the appellate authority over the orders passed by the Managing Officer, cannot be treated as an aggrieved party so as to initiate suo motu proceedings. It is also further contended that, even assuming such proceedings could be initiated, the same authority could not adjudicate the matter himself, as this would be contrary to the fundamental principles of natural justice, which require that no person having an interest in the litigation should decide it. Therefore, it is argued that the entire proceedings, which form the foundation of the litigation spanning over the last 53 years, are without jurisdiction and are liable to be set aside as unsustainable in law.
18) The learned counsel for the petitioners has also contended that the findings recorded by the revisional authority to the effect that the subject lands are not evacuee properties and do not form part of the compensation pool, are unsustainable in law. It is submitted that such findings were rendered without impleading the necessary and proper parties, namely, the Managing Officer, Competent Officer and the Central Government, which exercises control over the properties in question. Any (D.B. SAW/183/2014 has been filed in this matter. Please refer the same for further orders) (Uploaded onon08/04/2026 (Downloaded 08/04/2026atat10:30:30 08:51:30AM) PM) [2026:RJ-JD:14231] (18 of 58) [CW-148/2001] findings recorded in their absence are liable to be set aside, and the entire proceedings before such authorities deserve to be dismissed on the ground of non-joinder of proper and necessary parties.
19) The learned counsel for the petitioners further contended that the revisional authority, without verifying the relevant records and in the absence of any appeal by the Government against the findings of the District Magistrate-cum-Settlement Commissioner, has arrived at its own conclusions based on case set up by a third party, who claims to be a purchaser under Kalu Khan. It is submitted that such a purchaser, claiming locus standi on the basis of his purchase, cannot be permitted to set up a new case which was never pleaded earlier. Even if any such new case is sought to be introduced, the same cannot form the basis for setting aside the entire findings of the Settlement Commissioner, particularly when no appeal has been preferred by the State Government through any of its officers, including the District Collector or the Nagar Palika. It is further contended that the findings recorded by the District Collector, even assuming to be within jurisdiction, ought to be accepted to the extent that the subject lands are evacuee properties; and they were acquired under the Act of 1954, and that they form part of the compensation pool.
20) It is also contended that the alleged allotment of the property in favour of the Nagar Palika by the State Government, when the lands had already formed part of the compensation pool, is without jurisdiction and such allotment does not confer any right or title over the said land. A person having no right, title, or (D.B. SAW/183/2014 has been filed in this matter. Please refer the same for further orders) (Uploaded onon08/04/2026 (Downloaded 08/04/2026atat10:30:30 08:51:30AM) PM) [2026:RJ-JD:14231] (19 of 58) [CW-148/2001] possession cannot validly transfer any such right or interest in favour of the Nagar Palika. Even assuming that there were proceedings for transfer of a part of the subject land by the State Government to the Nagar Palika, the same cannot create any right or title in its favour, as the transferor itself had no right or title in the land. The Nagar Palika, on the basis of such an alleged transfer, which is invalid do not derive any legal right and cannot claim for ownership or possession of the property. Any such proceedings, even if they exist, reflecting transfer of lands to the Nagar Palika by the Government, are void ab initio and do not confer any right or title upon the transferee. Therefore, the claim set up by the Nagar Palika is liable to be rejected.
21) It is further contended that the subject lands are agricultural lands forming part of the compensation pool and was under the management of the Managing Officer by virtue of its acquisition for a public purpose, namely, the relief and rehabilitation of displaced persons under the Act of 1954. The Managing Officer, subject to the provisions of the Act, 1954 and the Rules, has the power to allot/transfer such lands in order to fulfill the object of the acquisition. It is submitted that although the lands are situated in an urban area, they retain the character of agricultural lands, and their allotment or transfer can be effected by the Managing Officer. Such transfer is not restricted only to displaced persons or their associations; the land can also be transferred to persons other than displaced persons, in accordance with the provisions of the Act and the Rules. It is further contended that the finding of the revisional authority that Kalu Khan was not a displaced person, and therefore ineligible for (D.B. SAW/183/2014 has been filed in this matter. Please refer the same for further orders) (Uploaded onon08/04/2026 (Downloaded 08/04/2026atat10:30:30 08:51:30AM) PM) [2026:RJ-JD:14231] (20 of 58) [CW-148/2001] allotment, is contrary to the scheme and provisions of the Act of 1954 and the Rules of 1955. The statutory framework permits the allotment and sale of such agricultural lands situated in urban areas, as is evident from Section 20 of the Act of 1954 and the Rules framed thereunder.
22) Finally, it is contended that the transfer of urban agricultural lands is governed by Chapter XV of the Rules of 1955, which permits sale either by public auction or by tender or by any other mode as may be directed by general or special orders of the competent authority, including the Chief Settlement Commissioner. It is submitted that the Regional Commissioner determined the value of the land on the basis of decisions taken by the competent authorities of the Central and State Governments. In terms of the policy so adopted, it was decided to regularise possession of occupants of lands forming part of the compensation pool by collecting the price of the lands as fixed by the Regional Commissioner. The Managing Officer, accordingly, collected the said amount, as has also been noted by the District Magistrate- cum-Settlement Commissioner in his subsequent order. It is, therefore, contended that the order of the Managing Officer do not suffer from any illegality, and there are no material to substantiate allegations of fraud or irregularity. Consequently, it is prayed that the writ petitions be allowed and the adverse observations and directions issued by the District Collector cum Settlement Commissioner and the revisional authority be set aside, and the Sanad granted in favour of Kalu Khan be upheld.
23) Per contra, the learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the State, along with the learned counsel for the (D.B. SAW/183/2014 has been filed in this matter. Please refer the same for further orders) (Uploaded onon08/04/2026 (Downloaded 08/04/2026atat10:30:30 08:51:30AM) PM) [2026:RJ-JD:14231] (21 of 58) [CW-148/2001] Union of India, opposed the contentions raised by the petitioners. The learned Additional Advocate General, at one stage, contended that the lands are not custodian lands but they are Government lands. At another stage, it was contended that the subject properties are not evacuee property, and they were never declared as such under the Act of 1950, and that it was never acquired under the Act of 1954. Subsequently, a different stand was taken to the effect that part of the land was declared evacuee property and part was classified as gair mumkin land as per the settlement records. It was further contended that the gair mumkin lands were allotted to the Nagar Palika for development, and that the Nagar Palika, after obtaining approval from the Town Planning authorities, developed the lands and sold the plots.
24) The learned AAG also contended that, even assuming that the lands formed part of the compensation pool, the Sanad issued by the Managing Officer suffers from apparent errors. It was submitted that the form and manner in which the Sanad was issued indicate non-compliance with the prescribed procedure and reveal irregularities suggesting the connivance and fraud between the applicant, Kalu Khan, and the Managing Officer. It was also pointed out that a complaint was registered in this regard, though Tulsiram and Bhanwarlal were ultimately exonerated. It is further submitted that agricultural lands situated in urban areas, if not allotted to displaced persons or their association, must be disposed of strictly in accordance with Chapter XV of the Rules of 1955. The said provisions contemplate disposal of such lands by way of public auction, and not by any other method. The process adopted in granting the Sanad in the present case does not (D.B. SAW/183/2014 has been filed in this matter. Please refer the same for further orders) (Uploaded onon08/04/2026 (Downloaded 08/04/2026atat10:30:30 08:51:30AM) PM) [2026:RJ-JD:14231] (22 of 58) [CW-148/2001] comply the procedure as required under the Rules, and therefore, the grant of the Sanad is illegal and unsustainable. It is also contended that the District Magistrate-cum-Settlement Commissioner, though an appellate authority, is the competent authority to initiate proceedings suo motu, and no fault could be found with such action. Therefore, the proceedings cannot be interfered on the ground that they were initiated suo motu. It is further submitted that, although no appeal was filed by the State Government and the Nagar Palika being aggrieved by the order of the Settlement Commissioner, the revisional authority has rightly interfered on the basis of a revision filed by a third party, who claimed to have purchased the land from Tulsiram, who in turn had purchased it from Kalu Khan. The impugned orders, therefore, do not suffer from any legal infirmity.
25) The learned Senior Counsel, Dr. Sachin Acharya, appearing for the respondent-Nagar Palika, Nagaur, while partly adopting the arguments of learned AAG representing the State, has contended that the impugned order of the revisional authority clearly demonstrates that the manner and hastiness exhibited by the Managing Officer in issuing the Sanad on the application of Kalu Khan, coupled with the involvement of third-party purchasers at the initial stage--by entering into an agreement and thereafter speedily transferring the land in favour of Tulsiram and Bhanwarlal on the basis of an allegedly forged communication between the Rehabilitation Department, Jaipur, and the Asst. Custodian/ Tehsildar, indicate that the case involves fraud and forgery, in issuance of an invalid Sanad. It is also his submission that possession and ownership of the lands had already been (D.B. SAW/183/2014 has been filed in this matter. Please refer the same for further orders) (Uploaded onon08/04/2026 (Downloaded 08/04/2026atat10:30:30 08:51:30AM) PM) [2026:RJ-JD:14231] (23 of 58) [CW-148/2001] transferred to the Nagar Palika by the State Government much prior to the issuance of the Sanad. It is contended that, before issuing the Sanad, the concerned authority ought to have afforded an opportunity to the Nagar Palika to present its case, which has not been issued. Thus, on this ground as well, the impugned order does not warrant any interference.
26) It is also submitted by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent-Nagar Palika, Nagaur that the records clearly indicate that the properties in question were not evacuee properties. It is further contended that, even assuming that a portion of the land could be treated as evacuee properties, the remaining portion cannot be so classified as evacuee properties and they must be treated as abandoned property of one of the co-owners of the land. It is argued that once such lands are treated as abandoned properties, they vests in the State Government and cannot be regarded as evacuee properties so as to form part of the compensation pool or be acquired under the provisions of the Act of 1954. Accordingly, he prayed to dismiss the writ petition.
27) The learned ASG was also heard. 28) I have considered the rival contentions of all the parties
and carefully perused the material available on record.
29) In the backdrop of the above contentions, the issues that arise for consideration are as follows: (i) Whether the subject lands are evacuee properties; (ii) Whether the said lands were declared evacuee properties in accordance with the provisions of the Acts of 1949 and 1950; (iii) Whether the lands were acquired under Section 12 of the Act of 1954; (iv) Whether the procedure (D.B. SAW/183/2014 has been filed in this matter. Please refer the same for further orders) (Uploaded onon08/04/2026 (Downloaded 08/04/2026atat10:30:30 08:51:30AM) PM) [2026:RJ-JD:14231] (24 of 58) [CW-148/2001] adopted by the Managing Officer in granting the Sanad suffers from any procedural irregularity or illegality; (v) Whether the appellate authority can initiate suo motu proceedings, and if so, whether it can adjudicate the matter on that basis; (vi) Whether the proceedings conducted before the authorities are vitiated for non-joinder of proper and necessary parties, namely the Managing Officer and/or competent officer or the Central Government.
30) A close scrutiny of the pleadings of the Government as well as the Nagar Palika, along with those of the claimants clearly demonstrate that originally, the lands bearing Khasra Nos. 558, 559, 560, and 560/1, situated in Nagaur, recorded in the names of Wali Mohammad and Mohammad Ramzan Qaji. The records, as well as the eviction notice issued by the Asst Custodian, and the pleadings of the Managing Officer, clearly established that Wali Mohammad and Mohammad Ramzan Qaji were recorded Khatedars and that their names were duly recorded in the revenue records and Mr. Kalu Khan was shown in occupation/possession.
31) In this regard, it is relevant to refer to Section 2(d) of the Act of 1950 which defines "Evacuee" , which reads hereunder:-
"2. Definitions.-In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires,-
(a) to (c) .............
(d) "evacuee" means any person-
(i) who, on account of the setting up of the Dominions of India and Pakistan or on account of civil disturbances or the tear of such disturbances, leaves or has, on or after the 1st day of March, 1947, left, any place in a State for any place outside the territories now forming part of India, or
(ii) .....
(iii)...... [or]
(iv) ..........or (D.B. SAW/183/2014 has been filed in this matter. Please refer the same for further orders) (Uploaded onon08/04/2026 (Downloaded 08/04/2026atat10:30:30 08:51:30AM) PM) [2026:RJ-JD:14231] (25 of 58) [CW-148/2001]
(v).........."
32) It is also relevant to refer to Sections, 7, 8, 9 and 18 of the Act of 1950, they read as hereunder:-
"7. Notification of evacuee property.-(1) Where the Custodian is of opinion that any property is evacuee property within the meaning of this Act, he may, as may be prescribed to after causing notice thereof to be given in such manner the persons interested, and after holding such inquiry into the matter as the circumstances of the case permit, pass an order declaring any such property to be evacuee property, (1A)......
(2)........
(3) The Custodian shall, from time to time, notify, either by publication in the Official Gazette or in such other manner as may be prescribed, all properties declared by him to be evacuee properties under sub-section (1)."
xxx xxx xxx "8. Vesting of evacuee property in the Custodian.- (1) Any property declared to be evacuee property under section 7 shall be deemed to have vested in the Custodian for the State,-
(a) in the case of the property of an evacuee as defined in sub-clause (i) of clause (d) of section 2, from the date on which he leaves or left any place in a State for any place outside the territories now forming part of India;
(b)....... and
(c) ......
(2) Where immediately before the commencement of this Act, any property in a State had vested as evacuee property in any person exercising the powers of Custodian under any law repealed hereby, the property shall, on the commencement of this Act, be deemed to be evacuee property declared as such within the meaning of this Act and shall be deemed to have vested in the Custodian appointed or deemed to have been appointed for the State under this Act, and shall continue to so vest:
(D.B. SAW/183/2014 has been filed in this matter. Please refer the same for further orders) (Uploaded onon08/04/2026 (Downloaded 08/04/2026atat10:30:30 08:51:30AM) PM) [2026:RJ-JD:14231] (26 of 58) [CW-148/2001] Provided that where at the commencement of this Act there is pending before the High Court, the Custodian or any other authority for or in any State any proceeding under section 8 or section 30 of the Administration of Evacuee Property Ordinance, 1949 (12 of 1949), or under any other corresponding law repealed by the Administration of Evacuee Property Ordinance, 1949 (27 of 1949), then notwithstanding anything contained in this Act or in any other law for the time being in force, such proceeding shall be disposed of as if the definitions of "evacuee property" and "evacuee" contained in section 2 of this Act had become applicable thereto.
[(2A) Without prejudice to the generality of the provisions contained in sub-section (2), all property which under any law repealed hereby purports to have vested as evacuee property in any person exercising the powers of Custodian in any State shall, notwithstanding any defect in, or the invalidity of, such law or any judgment, decree or order of any Court, be deemed for all purposes to have validly vested in that person, as if the provisions of such law had been enacted by Parliament and such property shall, on the commencement of this Act, be deemed to have been evacuee property declared as such within the meaning of this Act and accordingly, any order made or other action taken by the Custodian or any other authority in relation to such property shall be deemed to have been validly and lawfully made or taken.] (3)..........
(4) Where after any evacuee property has vested in the Custodian any person is in possession thereof, he shall be deemed to be holding it on behalf of the Custodian and shall on demand surrender possession of it to the Custodian or to any other person duly authorized by him in this behalf."
xxx xxx xxx 33) Prior to the Act of 1950, the law governing the regulation
of evacuees and evacuee properties in the Marwar area was the Marwar Evacuees (Administration of Property) Act, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act of 1949"). These provisions are (D.B. SAW/183/2014 has been filed in this matter. Please refer the same for further orders) (Uploaded onon08/04/2026 (Downloaded 08/04/2026atat10:30:30 08:51:30AM) PM) [2026:RJ-JD:14231] (27 of 58) [CW-148/2001] also relevant for the purposes of the present case, as the properties in question are located in the Marwar region. Sections 2(b) and (c), and Sections 4 and 7 of the Act of 1949 are relavant and they read as under:
"2. In this Act unless there is anything repugnant in subject or context-
(a) ...
(b) Evacuee" means a person ordinarily resident in or owning property or carrying on business within Marwar who on account of civil disturbances or the fear of such disturbances, or the partition of the country: -
(i) leaves. or has since the first day of March 1947, left Marwar for a place outside India, or
(ii) cannot personally occupy or supervise his business, or watch his interests or enforce his rights.
(c) "evacuce property" includes all property in which an evacuee has any right or interest but does not include any movable property in his immediate physical possession;"
xxx xxx xxx "4. All evacuee property situated within Marwar shall vest in the Custodian for the purposes of this Act and shall continue to be so vested until it is returned to the owner in accordance with the provisions of section 12."
xxx xxx xxx "7. (1) Any person claiming any right to or interest in any property of which the Custodian has taken possession or assumed control under Section 6 may prefer such claim to the Custodian by an application within thirty days from the date on which the possession of the property was taken.
(2) The Custodian may, after summary inquiry, reject the application if it appears to him that the claim is untenable.
(3) If upon such inquiry it appears to the Custodian that the applicant has a right to or interest in the property, he may make such order as he considers proper in order to (D.B. SAW/183/2014 has been filed in this matter. Please refer the same for further orders) (Uploaded onon08/04/2026 (Downloaded 08/04/2026atat10:30:30 08:51:30AM) PM) [2026:RJ-JD:14231] (28 of 58) [CW-148/2001] give effect to such right or interest, consistently with the objects of this Act;
Provided that if the Custodian is satisfied that the property is not evacuee property and that the applicant is entitled to the exclusive possession of the property, he may deliver possession of the property to the applicant. (4) The Custodian shall record an order setting out his findings and the reasons therefor.
(4-A) The Custodian or Additional Custodian may, at any time on his own motion or on application made to him, call for records of any proceedings under this Section pending before or disposed of by an Assistant or Deputy Custodian, for the purpose of satisfying himself as to the legality or propriety of any order passed in the aforesaid proceedings and may pass any orders in relation thereto as he may think fit;
Provided that the Custodian or Additional Custodian shall not under this sub-section pass an order revising or modifying such order and affecting any person without giving such person an opportunity of being heard; Provided further that if one of the officers aforesaid takes action under this sub-section, the other shall not be competent to do so.
(5) Any person aggrieved by an order made under sub- section (4) or (4-A) may appeal to the District Judge within one month of the making of the order.
(6) The High Court may of its own motion or on application made to it call for the record of any proceedings relating to an evacuee property whether pending or disposed of under sub-sections (4), (4-A) or (5), for the purpose of satisfying itself as to the legality or propriety of an order passed in the aforesaid proceedings, and may pass such orders in relation thereto as it may think fit.
(7) Subject to the decision of the District Judge on appeal or the High Court in revision, the order of the Custodian under sub-section (4) or (4-A) shall be final and conclusive."
33.1) By virtue of the various provisions contained in the Act of 1949, as detailed hereinabove, any person who left, or has been residing since the first day of March, 1949 or is unable to (D.B. SAW/183/2014 has been filed in this matter. Please refer the same for further orders) (Uploaded onon08/04/2026 (Downloaded 08/04/2026atat10:30:30 08:51:30AM) PM) [2026:RJ-JD:14231] (29 of 58) [CW-148/2001] personally occupy or supervise his property, watch his interests, or enforce his rights, is deemed to be an "evacuee." Such property automatically vests in the Custodian. In contrast, the provisions under the Act of 1950, particularly the definition of "evacuee," are more elaborate one, and the concept of "evacuee property" also differs slightly. The evacuee properties which were vested with custodian under Marwar repealed Act deemed to vest with custodian from the date of commencement Act, 1950. 33.2) The various documents produced by the petitioners, including the notifications published in the Rajasthan Gazette and the revenue records show that the subject lands were originally recorded in the names of Wali Mohammad and Mohammad Ramzan Qazi. The State Government Gazette dated 11.03.1950 (Annexure-5), along with the notification issued thereunder, clearly indicates that certain properties of Ramzan Qazi of Nagaur, particularly house property, were declared as evacuee property. This notification suggests that Mohammad Ramzan Qazi was an evacuee and that some of his properties, which were brought to the notice of the Assistant Custodian, were declared as evacuee properties. Apart from the aforesaid Gazette notification and the revenue records, there is a clear admission as reflected in various orders passed by the authorities below, demonstrates that part of the subject lands i.e., 68 bighas and 2 biswas, had been treated as evacuee properties. However, the State Government as well as the Nagar Palika have failed to place any material on record to show how and under what proceedings the said lands were declared as evacuee properties, and why the remaining lands were not so declared. No revenue record has been produced to (D.B. SAW/183/2014 has been filed in this matter. Please refer the same for further orders) (Uploaded onon08/04/2026 (Downloaded 08/04/2026atat10:30:30 08:51:30AM) PM) [2026:RJ-JD:14231] (30 of 58) [CW-148/2001] establish that the Government was the owner of the subject properties prior to 1950 so as to substantiate its claim that the lands comprised in the old Khasra numbers are Government land. 33.3) The entire proceedings undertaken by the District Magistrate-cum-Settlement Commissioner proceeded on the premise that the subject lands covered under the Sanad werre not Custodian lands and that Kalu Khan was not in possession as is evident from the initial notice issued for taking suo motu cognizance. The said premise is not supported by any evidence. A vague and bald claim has been made without support of any revenue record. On the contrary, the revenue records produced by the petitioners clearly demonstrate that the lands in question were recorded in the names of Wali Mohammad and Mohammad Ramzan Qazi. The Gazette notification dated 11.03.1950 further establishes that one of them, namely Mohammad Ramzan Qazi, was declared an evacuee. Once he was so declared, although the revenue records reflect common ownership with Wali Mohammad, the interest of Mohammad Ramzan Qazi, by virtue of the provisions of the Marwar Evacuees (Administration of Property) Act, 1949, particularly Section 4 thereof, vested in the Custodian, unlike the procedure contemplated under Section 7 of the Act of 1950. All the properties were treated as properties of Mohd. Ramzan.
33.4) The Jamabandi (Annexure-3) clearly shows that Wali Mohammad and Mohammad Ramzan Qazi were the recorded khatedars of old Khasra Nos.558 to 560 and 560/1, admeasuring 149 bighas and 8 biswas, and that the lands were recorded as agricultural lands. The Government has not produced any revenue (D.B. SAW/183/2014 has been filed in this matter. Please refer the same for further orders) (Uploaded onon08/04/2026 (Downloaded 08/04/2026atat10:30:30 08:51:30AM) PM) [2026:RJ-JD:14231] (31 of 58) [CW-148/2001] record prior to 1950 to establish its ownership over the said property.
34) The stand taken by the Government that the lands are gair mumkin, agor, and covered by roads and rastas is based on the alleged settlement survey of 1964. The proceedings drawn under the Act of 1949/1950, as reflected in Annexure-6, clearly demonstrate that, by order dated 18.09.1951, the District Assistant Custodian declared two maidans and three fields located in Nagaur as evacuee properties on the basis of the claim made by the son of Mohammad Ramzan Qazi. Annexure-7, being a letter dated 09.02.1951 issued by the Assistant Custodian to the Tehsildar, was consequential to the declaration dated 08.01.1951, whereby the subject lands along with two maidans were declared as evacuee properties. By the said letter, the Tehsildar was directed to record subject lands as Custodian lands and directed to report compliance. Annexure-4 is the Girdawari for Samvat years 2004-2007 of village Nagaur and it clearly demonstrates that the said directions were complied by the Patwari, who recorded the subject lands as evacuee properties. Further, the Gazette Notification of the Government of Rajasthan dated 09.08.1956, issued in compliance with the requirements of Section 7 of the Act of 1950, clearly establishes that the subject lands were notified as evacuee properties.
35) The respondents, however, have set up a new case that the subject lands were not notified under Section 12 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954 ( herein after referred as Act of 1954), on the ground that they were not evacuee properties, and that no notification, as required (D.B. SAW/183/2014 has been filed in this matter. Please refer the same for further orders) (Uploaded onon08/04/2026 (Downloaded 08/04/2026atat10:30:30 08:51:30AM) PM) [2026:RJ-JD:14231] (32 of 58) [CW-148/2001] under Section 7 of the Act of 1950, exists. Such contention is also unmerited. In fact, the subject lands were vested with custodian under section 4 of repealed Act, 1949. By virtue of section 8(2) of Act, 1950, the lands vested in the hands of custodian under repealed Act, 1949 are deemed to be vested under new Act, 1950 with effect from commencement of Act, 1950 in terms section 8(2) of Act,1950. Thus, the contention of the learned AAG and senior counsel appearing for Nagarpalika that the lands covered under Sanad are not Evacuee property are unmerited and contrary to record and same is rejected.
36) It has also been contended by respondent that, as per the admitted case of Kalu Khan, only Mohammad Ramzan Qazi had migrated; since the lands were commonly held by Wali Mohammad and Mohammad Ramzan Qazi, the entire lands could not have been declared as evacuee properties. There is no dispute that the revenue records clearly demonstrate that both Wali Mohammad and Mohammad Ramzan Qazi were recorded as common khatedars of the entire lands which forms the subject matter of Sanad. There is also evidence to the effect that only Mohammad Ramzan Qazi had migrated and was declared an evacuee. There is no evidence on record to show that Wali Mohammad was ever declared as an evacuee. The material on record clearly show that Mohammad Ramzan Qazi alone was an evacuee and the entire composite lands covered under Sanad were treated as his evacuee properties. Wali Mohammad or his legal heirs have not made any claim under Section 7(1) of repealed Act, 1949.
(D.B. SAW/183/2014 has been filed in this matter. Please refer the same for further orders) (Uploaded onon08/04/2026 (Downloaded 08/04/2026atat10:30:30 08:51:30AM) PM) [2026:RJ-JD:14231] (33 of 58) [CW-148/2001]
37) In this regard, it is relevant to refer to the provisions of Sections 4, 5, 6 of the Evacuee Interest (Separation) Act, 1951 as Amended Act of 1960, the relevant provisions read as under:-
"4. Power to appoint competent officers.
(1)The State Government may, with the approval of the Central Government, by notification in the Official Gazette, appoint as many competent officers as may be necessary for the purpose of performing the functions assigned to them by or under this Act, and a competent officer may perform his functions in such local area or areas as may be specified in the notification.
(2)No person shall be qualified to be appointed as a competent officer under this Act unless he has held a judicial office for at least five years, or has been an advocate or a pleader for at least seven years."
xxx xxx xxx "5. Jurisdiction of competent officers. A competent officer shall have jurisdiction to decide any claim relating to any composite property situate within the limits of the local area of his jurisdiction and such cases or classes of cases as may, by general or special order, be transferred to him under section 19 by the Central Government or the appellate officer."
xxx xxx xxx "6. Notice to submit claims.
(1) For the purpose of determining or separating the evacuee interest in a composite property, any competent officer having jurisdiction over such property may, either on information received in this behalf from the Custodian or on an application from a claimant, issue, in such form and manner as may be prescribed,--
(a) a general notice requiring all persons who claim interest in such property, and
(b) also a notice on every person who, in the opinion of the competent officer, may have a claim in such property, to submit claims, if any, in respect of that property.
(D.B. SAW/183/2014 has been filed in this matter. Please refer the same for further orders) (Uploaded onon08/04/2026 (Downloaded 08/04/2026atat10:30:30 08:51:30AM) PM) [2026:RJ-JD:14231] (34 of 58) [CW-148/2001] (2) An application under sub- section (1) shall be in such form and manner as may be prescribed.
(3) No application under this section shall be entertained if filed after the expiry of one year from the commencement of the Evacuee Interest (Separation) Amendment Act, 1960 (27 of 1960 )."
38) A competent officer has the jurisdiction to decide any claim relating to composite property and such jurisdiction can be exercised either on the information received from the Custodian or on an application made by a claimant. This means that a person having an interest in such composite property can raise a claim under Section 6 of the Act of 1951, asserting his interest in evacuee property forming part of such composite property. Sub- section (3) of the Section 6 of Act, 1951 is of particular relevance. The provision clearly stipulates that no application under Section 6 shall be entertained after the expiry of one year from the commencement of the Evacuee Interest (Separation) Amendment Act, 1960, which came into force on 15.10.1960. In other words, any claim relating to any rights in a composite property, whether already declared as evacuee property or sought to be so declared, was required to be presented for adjudication either by the Custodian or by the person having an interest therein, on or before 14.10.1961. If no such claim was presented within the prescribed period, the same could not thereafter be entertained.
39) Even under section 7 (1) of repealed Act,1949, an opportunity is prescribed to any person having any interest in any declared evacuee property to file claim before custodian which is not there till date. Even assuming that the subject lands were commonly owned by Wali Mohammad and Mohammad Ramzan (D.B. SAW/183/2014 has been filed in this matter. Please refer the same for further orders) (Uploaded onon08/04/2026 (Downloaded 08/04/2026atat10:30:30 08:51:30AM) PM) [2026:RJ-JD:14231] (35 of 58) [CW-148/2001] Qazi, but such properties were declared as evacuee properties of Mohammad Ramzan Qazi. Any claim on behalf of Wali Mohammad ought to have been raised either under provisions of repealed Act,1949 before custodian or under section 6 of Act,1951 before competent officer within the stipulated period. If no such claim is lodged, in view of Sub-section (3) of Section 6 of the Act of 1951, no such issue could remain alive after 15.10.1961. Therefore, the stand of the government and Nagarpalika that half of the land belonging to Wali Mohammad, who was not a migrant, was treated as abandoned land, is untenable. The entire lands comprised in Khasra Nos. 558 to 560 and 560/1 were declared evacuee properties in respect of Mohammad Ramzan Qazi. Even if Wali Mohammad had any subsisting interest, the same could have been asserted by him within stipulated time which he admittedly had not done. Consequently, the lands could not be treated as abandoned land, particularly when it had already vested in the Custodian. Further, there is no record to show that half of the Sanad lands were declared as abandoned lands. In the above circumstances, the claim of the Government and Nagarpalika that half of the lands, being the subject matter of the present case, became abandoned lands and consequently treated as gair mumkin, agor, or as road and rasta, cannot be sustained and is rejected.
40) The stand of the State Government that there was no notification under Section 7 of the Act of 1950, cannot be accepted as a valid contention. Annexure-13 is the Rajasthan Gazette Notification dated 09.08.1956, which clearly evidences publication in the Gazette regarding the lands declared as evacuee (D.B. SAW/183/2014 has been filed in this matter. Please refer the same for further orders) (Uploaded onon08/04/2026 (Downloaded 08/04/2026atat10:30:30 08:51:30AM) PM) [2026:RJ-JD:14231] (36 of 58) [CW-148/2001] properties under Section 7 of the Act of 1950. As per Section 8 of the Act,1950 the vesting of property takes effect from the date of its declaration as evacuee property, and such vesting is not dependent upon the publication of the declaration under Section 7(3) of the Act of 1950. The requirement of publication is procedural in nature under Section 7, and is not a condition precedent for the vesting of the property in the Custodian. In the present case, there is clear evidence of publication of declaration of the property which comply the requirement of Section 7(3) of the Act of 1950, as reflected in the Gazette Notification.
41) Such contention can also be rejected on other ground. The subject lands are situated in Marward region of Rajasthan. Prior to Act,1950, there was a repealed Act,1949. As per section 4 of repealed Act, 1949, the evacuee lands vest with custodian until they are returned to owner. Any person having any interest in such Evacuee lands shall lodge claim before the Custodian under section 7 of repealed Act, 1949. As per section 8(2) of Act, 1950, the lands which were vested in the Custodian under repealed Act, 1949 are deemed to be vested under Act, 1950 from the date of commencement of such Act. Thus, strictly speaking, the procedure contemplated under section 7 of Act, 1950 for declaring the Evacuee properties is not applicable to the present properties.
42) The document Annexure-9 is an order passed by the District Assistant Custodian, Nagaur. This order clearly demonstrates that various persons have claimed interest in different lands held by the evacuee. The order also deals with the claim of Kalu Khan under Point No. 5. The said order was pronounced on 04.08.1955 which exhaustively adjudicated all the (D.B. SAW/183/2014 has been filed in this matter. Please refer the same for further orders) (Uploaded onon08/04/2026 (Downloaded 08/04/2026atat10:30:30 08:51:30AM) PM) [2026:RJ-JD:14231] (37 of 58) [CW-148/2001] claims set up by various persons in respect of the evacuee properties. One such claimant, namely Karimuddin, who claimed an interest in lands situated in village Ramsia, preferred an appeal before the Custodian of Evacuee Property, Rajasthan. The said appeal was also dismissed on 19.03.1956. Thus, all disputes relating to the subject property involved in the present writ petitions stood adjudicated by the order dated 04.08.1955 passed by the Assistant Custodian. Consequently, the said order has attained finality insofar as the subject lands are concerned.
43) Annexure-11 is the Gazette Notification issued under Section 12 of the Act of 1954, dated 06.04.1955. The relevant extracts reads hereunder:-
MINISTRY OF REHABILITATION New Delhi, the 6th April 1955 S. R. O. 815-Whereas the Central Government is of opinion that it is necessary to acquire certain evacuee properties in the State of Rajasthan for a public purpose being a purpose mentioned in sub-section (1) of section 12 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954 (44 of 1954):
Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by the said sub-section, it is notified that the Central Government has decided to acquire and hereby acquires, the evacuee properties specified in the Schedule hereto annexed:
THE SCHEDULE All evacuee properties consisting of agricultural lands and groves (including gardens) in the State of Rajasthan except all such properties falling under any one or more of the following categories, that is to say-
(1) any such property-
(i) in respect of which proceedings are pending before any authority at the date of this notification under the (D.B. SAW/183/2014 has been filed in this matter. Please refer the same for further orders) (Uploaded onon08/04/2026 (Downloaded 08/04/2026atat10:30:30 08:51:30AM) PM) [2026:RJ-JD:14231] (38 of 58) [CW-148/2001] Administration of Evacuee Property Act, 1950 (XXXI of 1950) in which the question at issue is whether the property is or is not evacuee property; or
(ii) in respect of which the period of limitation, if any, fixed for filing an appeal or revision under the said Act for disputing the vesting of the property in the Custodian as evacuee property has not expired:
(2) ......
(3) ......."
44) All disputes relating to evacuee properties, which had been resolved up to 06.04.1955, were acquired by the said notification. However, in the present case, all disputes relating to the subject lands were adjudicated and brought to an end by the order of the Assistant Custodian dated 04.08.1955. This clearly indicates that the Notification dated 06.04.1955 is not applicable to the present case, and consequently, no vesting of the property could be said to have taken place under Section 12 of the Act of 1954 pursuant to the said notification. There is, however, another notification dated 20.07.1962, which pertains to properties in respect of which claims could be raised under the Evacuee Interest (Separation) Act, 1951. The material on record clearly demonstrates that the declared evacuee properties were composite properties. Initially, section 7 of repealed Act, 1949 gives right to lodge claim by any person having any interest in the evacuee properties. Further, by virtue of the Amendment Act of 1960 to Evacuee Interest (Separation) Act, 1951, a period of one year is provided for raising any such claim as a last resort.
Suppose, where claims which could have been lodged but not lodged or if any, had already been lodged and adjudicated and (D.B. SAW/183/2014 has been filed in this matter. Please refer the same for further orders) (Uploaded onon08/04/2026 (Downloaded 08/04/2026atat10:30:30 08:51:30AM) PM) [2026:RJ-JD:14231] (39 of 58) [CW-148/2001] attained finality, such properties became free from all disputes and absolutely vest with custodian under section 11 of Act, 1951.
45) In this regard, it is relevant to refer to Section 12 of the Act of 1954.
"12. Power to acquire evacuee property for rehabilitation of displaced persons--
(1) If the Central Government is of opinion that it is necessary to acquire any evacuee property for a public purpose, being a purpose connected with the relief and rehabilitation of displaced persons, including payment of compensation to such persons, the Central Government any at any time acquire such evacuee property by publishing in the Official Gazette a notification to the effect that the Central Government has decided to acquire such evacuee property in pursuance of this section.
(2) On the publication of a notification under sub-
section (1), the right, title and interest of any evacuee in the evacuee property specified in the notification shall, on and from the beginning of the date on which the notification is so published, be extinguished and the evacuee property shall vest absolutely in the Central Government free from all encumbrances.
(3) It shall be lawful for the Central Government, if it so considers necessary, to issue from time to time the notification referred to in sub-section (1) in respect of-
(a) all evacuee property generally; or
(b) any class of evacuee property; or
(c) all evacuee property situated in a specified area; or
(d) any particular evacuee property."
46) The aforesaid provision clearly shows that the central government has power to acquire the evacuee property for a public purpose, being a purpose connected with the relief and rehabilitation of displaced persons. For this purpose a notification (D.B. SAW/183/2014 has been filed in this matter. Please refer the same for further orders) (Uploaded onon08/04/2026 (Downloaded 08/04/2026atat10:30:30 08:51:30AM) PM) [2026:RJ-JD:14231] (40 of 58) [CW-148/2001] under Section 12 (1) of the Act of 1954 required to be published in official Gazette. From the date of such publication, the lands vest absolutely with the central government thereby such properties ceased to be Evacuee properties. Such notification can be issued from time to time. Such notification may relate to all evacuee properties generally, or to any class of evacuee properties, or to all evacuee properties situated in a specified area, or even to any particular evacuee property. The notifications published in official gazette from time to time as referred to in the annexures clearly indicate that they are either general in nature or relate to a class of evacuee properties such as house properties or agricultural properties situated in urban or rural areas.
47) In the context of such general acquisition of evacuee properties, the relevant consideration is when the subject properties said to have been acquired by the Central Government. In the present case, disputes remained pending as on 06.04.1955. The disputes relating to subject lands only concluded by order dt. 04.08.1955 of Assistant Custodian. Thus, the subject lands were not acquired under notification issued in official gazette dt.06.08.1955.
48) The records show that subject lands were composite properties of Wali Mohammad and Mohammad Ramzan Qaji. The record also shows entire lands in Sanad were declared as Evacuee properties. The repealed Act of 1949 gives right to lodge claim by any person who is having any interest in Evacuee property. Similarly, the Act of 1951 by way of Amendment Act of 1960 has given final chance to raise any claim over composite properties. This means that there was ample scope for any person having any (D.B. SAW/183/2014 has been filed in this matter. Please refer the same for further orders) (Uploaded onon08/04/2026 (Downloaded 08/04/2026atat10:30:30 08:51:30AM) PM) [2026:RJ-JD:14231] (41 of 58) [CW-148/2001] interest in composite properties to raise claims under section 6 of Act of 1951. Section 6(3) of Act, 1951 provides one year time to any person having any interest in composite properties to lodge their claims under the provisions of the Act of 1951. Although the records demonstrate composite ownership, the law permitted such claims to be raised within one year from the commencement of the Amendment Act of 1960, i.e., up to the year 1961. Thereafter, all claims in respect of the composite property stood barred. Consequently, the property became free from dispute in the year 15.10.1961.
49) Now question is whether subject lands were acquired under Section 12 of the Act of 1954. The central government issued official gazette notification dated 20.07.1962 under Section 12 of Act of 1954. It is also to be noted that notifications issued under Section 12 of the Act of 1954 are not property-specific notifications but are general in nature. The said notification reads as follows:-
A SCHEDULE S.O. 2344. - New Delhi, the 20th July 1962 - Whereas the Central Government is of the opinion that it is necessary to acquire the evacuee properties specified in the schedule hereto annexed in the State of Rajasthan for a public purpose being a purpose connected with the relief and rehabilitation of displaced persons, including payment of compensation to such persons.
Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by section 12 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954 (44 of 1954) it is notified that the Central Government has decided to acquire and hereby acquires the evacuee properties specified in the schedule hereto annexed.
A SCHEDULE (D.B. SAW/183/2014 has been filed in this matter. Please refer the same for further orders) (Uploaded onon08/04/2026 (Downloaded 08/04/2026atat10:30:30 08:51:30AM) PM) [2026:RJ-JD:14231] (42 of 58) [CW-148/2001] All properties in the State of Rajasthan which have vested in the Custodian under section 11 of the Evacuee Interest (Separation) Act, 1951, as a result of adjudication by the Competent Officers under the provisions of the said Act, upto 30th June, 1962 and in respect of which no appeals have been filed and if filed have been rejected by the Appellate Officer.
______
50) It is relevant to refer to section 11 of Act of 1951 which reads as follows;
11. Vesting of evacuee interest in the Custodian free from encumbrances and payments, etc., to be valid discharge from all claims.
(1) Where in respect of any property, notice under section 6 is issued but no claim is filed or found to exist or where any claim in respect of such property is found to exist and the competent officer separates the evacuee interest therein under section 10, the whole property, or, as the case may be, the evacuee interest in the property thus separated shall vest in the Custodian free from all encumbrances and liabilities and any payment, transfer or partition made or effected under section 10, in satisfaction of any claim in respect of the property shall be a full and valid discharge of all claims in respect of the property.
51) A reading of the above provision, it is clear that if any notice is given under section 6 of Act of 1951 but no claim is filed whole property or evacuee interest separated shall vest in the Custodian. Any claim relating composite properties when no claim has been filed under section 6 of Act 1951 deemed to have barred after 15.10.1961 and thereafter the lands vest in custodian under section 11 of Act, 1951. The central government issued official gazette notification dated 20.07.1962 under Section 12 of Act of 1954. It is also general notification. This notification was relating to lands vested under section 11 of Act, 1951. In view of the (D.B. SAW/183/2014 has been filed in this matter. Please refer the same for further orders) (Uploaded onon08/04/2026 (Downloaded 08/04/2026atat10:30:30 08:51:30AM) PM) [2026:RJ-JD:14231] (43 of 58) [CW-148/2001] above material, it cannot be contended that there was no notification under Section 12 of the Act of 1954. This position was also accepted by the District Collector in his latest order, which, however, came to be set aside by the revisional authority whose orders are presently under challenge. The revisional authority neither called for the relevant records nor made any endeavour to obtain inputs from the Managing Officer, who was in charge of the compensation pool and competent officer under Act,1951. Instead, he proceeded merely on the basis of contentions advanced from third parties and reached hasty conclusions, by terming the transactions as fraudulent, and thereby nullified the entire Sanad without taking note that the genesis of dispute was that subject lands were not evacuee properties. Such orders of revisional Authorities is unsustainable.
52) The further question that arises is whether the procedure adopted by the Managing Officer in granting the Sanad suffers from any irregularity or illegality, or is the result of any fraud or forgery. It is needless to state that any plea of fraud or forgery must contain specific pleadings in this regard. However, the genesis or foundation of present proceedings lies in the notice dt 07.10.1972 issued by the Settlement Commissioner. The said notice does not refer to any fraud or forgery. The case has been improved from time to time without any consistency in stand. The pleadings were loosely drafted and were not supported by any evidence. The allegation of forgery pertains to a letter issued by the Rehabilitation Department, Jaipur, dated 12.06.1972, addressed to the Managing Officer, wherein a clarification was made that the price referred to in the letter of the Regional (D.B. SAW/183/2014 has been filed in this matter. Please refer the same for further orders) (Uploaded onon08/04/2026 (Downloaded 08/04/2026atat10:30:30 08:51:30AM) PM) [2026:RJ-JD:14231] (44 of 58) [CW-148/2001] Commissioner was the price of the entire land for the grant of the Sanad. However, the District Collector, upon calling of records, recorded a finding that the letter dated 19.03.1974 was a forged document. This was never the case set up by the District Collector-cum-Settlement Commissioner initially. When forgery is alleged, it must be specifically pleaded and informed by notice to the opposite party, clearly identifying the document alleged to be forged. Criminal proceedings were also initiated against Tulsi Ram and Bhanwar Lal; however, they were acquitted. The conclusion regarding forgery appears to have been drawn solely on the ground of alleged hastiness and speedness in processing the grant of the Sanad. Mere hastiness and speedness by itself cannot be regarded as conclusive proof to establish that the issuance of Sanad was the result of forgery. These findings are also unsustainable.
53) The question that now arises is whether the Sanad was granted in accordance with the prescribed procedure or suffers from any illegality. Before proceeds further, it apt to refer certain provisions of Act of 1954.
54) Section 6 Act of 1954 deals with management of compensation pool and section 17 Act of 1954 deals with power and functions of Managing officer and section 20 Act of 1954 deals power to transfer and they are hereunder:
"6. Management of compensation pool:-
(1) The Central Government may take such measures as it considers necessary or expedient for the custody, management and disposal of the compensation pool in order that it may be effectively utilised in accordance with provisions of this Act:
(D.B. SAW/183/2014 has been filed in this matter. Please refer the same for further orders) (Uploaded onon08/04/2026 (Downloaded 08/04/2026atat10:30:30 08:51:30AM) PM) [2026:RJ-JD:14231] (45 of 58) [CW-148/2001] (2) In particular, and without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing power, the Central Government may, for the purposes referred in sub-section (1) by notification in the Official Gazette:
(a) appoint such officers as it may deem fit (hereinafter referred a managing officer); or
(b) ........
(c) ........"
"17. Functions and duties of managing officers and managing corporations-
(1).........
(2) Subject to the provisions of this Act and the rules made there-under, a managing officer or managing corporation may take such measures as he or it considers necessary or expedient for the purpose of securing, administering, preserving managing or disposing of any property in the compensation pool entrusted to him or it and generally for the purpose of satisfactorily discharging any of the duties imposed on him or it by or under this Act and may for any such purpose as aforesaid, do all acts and incur all expenses necessary or incidental thereto.
(3)....."
"20. Power to transfer property out of the compensation pool--
(1) Subject to rules that may be made under this Act, the managing officer or managing corporation may transfer any property out of the compensation pool--(a) by sale of such property to a displaced person or any association of displaced persons, whether incorporate or not, or to any other person, whether the property is sold by public auction or otherwise;
(b) by lease of any such property to a displaced person or an association of displaced persons whether incorporated or not, or to any other person;
(c) by allotment of any such property to a displaced person or an association of displaced persons whether incorporated or not, or to any other person, on such valuation as the Settlement Commissioner may determine;
(d) in the case of a share of an evacuee a company, by transfer of such share to a displaced person or any (D.B. SAW/183/2014 has been filed in this matter. Please refer the same for further orders) (Uploaded onon08/04/2026 (Downloaded 08/04/2026atat10:30:30 08:51:30AM) PM) [2026:RJ-JD:14231] (46 of 58) [CW-148/2001] association of displaced persons whether incorporated or not, or to any other person, notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in the Indian Companies Act, 1913 (7 of 1913) or in the memorandum of articles of association of such company;
(e) in such other manner as may be prescribed.
(1A) for the purpose of transferring any property out of the compensation pool under sub-section (i), it shall be lawful for the managing officer or the managing corporation to transfer the same to a displaced persons jointly with any other person or an association of displaced persons or otherwise. (2) Every managing officer or managing corporation selling any immovable property by public auction under sub-section (1) shall be deemed to be a Revenue Officer within the meaning of sub-section (4) of Section 89 of the Indian Registration Act, 1908 (XVI of 1908) (3) Where the ownership of any property has passed to the buyer before the payment of the whole of the purchase money, the amount of the purchase money or any part thereof remaining unpaid and any interest on such amount or part shall, notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in any other law, be a first charge upon the property in the hands of buyer or any transferee from such buyer and may, on a certificate issued by the Chief Settlement Commissioner, be recovered in the same manner as an arrear of land revenue."
55) As seen from the section 6(1) of Act of 1954, the primary responsibility lies with Central Government to take such measures as it considers necessary or expedient for the custody, management and disposal of the property of compensation pool. As per the section 6(2) of the Act of 1954, the Central Government can appoint any officers to discharge its functions. By exercising such powers, the Central Government has appointed Managing Officer to have custody, management and disposal of properties of compensation pool.
56) It is not in dispute that Section 20 of the Act of 1954 enables the Managing Officer to sell the property not only to (D.B. SAW/183/2014 has been filed in this matter. Please refer the same for further orders) (Uploaded onon08/04/2026 (Downloaded 08/04/2026atat10:30:30 08:51:30AM) PM) [2026:RJ-JD:14231] (47 of 58) [CW-148/2001] displaced persons or associations of displaced persons, but also to any other persons, subject to the prescribed rules. Admittedly, the lands in dispute are situated in Nagaur, which is a municipal town, and such lands were recorded as agricultural lands at the time of vesting under the Act of 1950 and also at the time of acquisition under Section 12 of the Act of 1954. The subsequent re- settlement, allegedly carried out in 1964, is not of much relevance to their re-classification and such classification cannot be altered once the lands are acquired by the Central Government and form part of the compensation pool prior to re-settlement. Moreover, there is an overriding provision in respect of actions taken under the Act of 1954.
57) Chapter V-A of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Rules, 1955 deals with the allotment of evacuee agricultural lands situated in urban areas. Rules 34-A to 34-H of the said Rules prescribe the manner of disposal and allotment, as well as the categories of persons to whom such land may be allotted. Rule 34-A to 34-H of the Rules of 1955 reads as follows:-
"Allotment of evacuee agricultural land situated in urban areas 34A. Application- The provision of this Chapter shall apply to evacuee agricultural lands situated in urban areas and acquired under section 12 of the Act.
34B. Valuation- For the purposes of this Chapter, all lands to which this Chapter applies shall be valued by an officer appointed in this behalf by the Regional Settlement Commissioner.
34C. Allotment of agricultural land of the value of Rs. 10,000/- or less- Where any land to which this Chapter applies has been leased to a displaced person and such lands consist of one or more Khasra and is (D.B. SAW/183/2014 has been filed in this matter. Please refer the same for further orders) (Uploaded onon08/04/2026 (Downloaded 08/04/2026atat10:30:30 08:51:30AM) PM) [2026:RJ-JD:14231] (48 of 58) [CW-148/2001] valued at Rs. 10,000/- or less, the land shall be allotted to the lessee:
Provided that where any such land or any part thereof has been leased to a displaced person and the sub-lessee has been in occupation of such land or part thereof continuously from the first January 1956, such land or part thereof, as the case may be, shall be allotted to such sub-lessee.
34D. Allotment of agricultural lands consisting of more than one Khasra, the value of which exceeds Rs. 10,000/- (1) Where any land to which the Chapter applies has been leased to a displaced person and such land consists of more than one Khasra, the aggregate value of which exceeds Rs. 10,000/- such portion of the land, the value of which does not exceed Rs. 10,000/- as the Regional Settlement Commissioner may select, shall be allotted to such person;
Provided that where any land or any part thereof has been sub-leased to a displaced person and the sub-lessee has been in occupation of that land or part thereof continuously from the first January, 1956, such land or part thereof, as the case may be, the value of which does not exceed Rs. 10,000/- as the Regional Settlement Commissioner may select, shall be allotted to such sub- lessee.
(2) In selecting the area for allotment under sub-rule (1), the Regional Settlement Commissioner shall have regard to the compactness of the area and other relevant matters.
(3) For the purposes of allotment of land under this rule, no Khasra shall be sub-divided.
34E. Maximum area of land allotable under this Chapter- Notwithstanding any thing contained in the foregoing provisions of the rules -
(a) no Khasra the value of which exceeds Rs.
10,000/- shall be allotted;
(b) the maximum area of land allotted to any one person shall not exceed Rs. 10,000/- in value. 34F. Certain provisions of Chapter V to apply- Where any land to which this Chapter applies is allotted (D.B. SAW/183/2014 has been filed in this matter. Please refer the same for further orders) (Uploaded onon08/04/2026 (Downloaded 08/04/2026atat10:30:30 08:51:30AM) PM) [2026:RJ-JD:14231] (49 of 58) [CW-148/2001] under rule 34-C or rule 34-D, the provisions of rules 25 to 29 (both inclusive) of Chapter V shall, so far as may, be apply.
34G. Grant of sanad for allotment of lands.- Where any land to which this Chapter applies is allotted to any person under rule 34-C or 34-D, the allottee shall be granted a Sanad in the forms specified in Appendix X-A or X-B, as the case may be, with necessary modifications.
34H. Manner of disposal of land not allotted.- Any land to which this Chapter applies which is not allotted under this Chapter, shall be disposed of in the manner provided in Chapter XIV."
58) The Sanad issued in the present case was in the format of Rule 34-G of the Rules of 1955, as contained in Appendices XA and XB. Primarily, such grants relate to allotments made under Rules 34-C and 34-D of the Rules of 1955. Rule 34-C deals with the allotment of property to displaced persons where the value is less than Rs. 10,000/-, whereas Rule 34-D pertains to the allotment of land to displaced persons where the value exceeds Rs. 10,000/-.
59) Rule 34-H is also relevant in this regard. It clearly provides that any land to which Chapter V applies which is not allotted under this Chapter shall be disposed of in the manner prescribed under Chapter XIV of the said Rules. Chapter XIV lays down the procedure for the sale of property forming part of the compensation pool. It recognizes two modes of sale, namely, sale by public auction or by inviting tenders. An exception is also provided to the effect that such property may also be sold in any other manner as the Chief Settlement Commissioner may, by (D.B. SAW/183/2014 has been filed in this matter. Please refer the same for further orders) (Uploaded onon08/04/2026 (Downloaded 08/04/2026atat10:30:30 08:51:30AM) PM) [2026:RJ-JD:14231] (50 of 58) [CW-148/2001] general or special order, direct, in terms of Rule 87 of the Rules of 1955. The said rule reads as under:-
"87. Mode of sale of property- Any property forming part of the compensation pool may be sold by public auction or by inviting tenders or in such other manner as the Chief Settlement Commissioner may, by general or special order direct."
60) This implies that the sale of agricultural lands situated in urban areas, to any other persons other than displaced persons or associations of displaced persons, is not confined to public auction or the tender process alone, but may also be effected in such other manner as may be directed by the Chief Settlement Commissioner by a general or special order.
61) The contention of the learned AAG and the learned Senior Counsel is that the subject lands ought to have been sold by public auction or through a tender process, and not by the method adopted by the Managing Officer. This argument, prima facie, appears to be untenable. Rule 87 of the Rules of 1955 permits the sale of property by any other mode, as may be directed by the Chief Settlement Commissioner by a general or special order, apart from public auction or the tender process. The proceedings of the Regional Settlement Commissioner, as reflected in Annexure-17, clearly demonstrate that meetings were held between senior officials of the Central Government and the State Government with a view to recovering the price of the lands from persons in possession, whether displaced persons or otherwise. Pursuant to such meetings, the State Government was authorized to collect the price of the lands on commission basis, as (D.B. SAW/183/2014 has been filed in this matter. Please refer the same for further orders) (Uploaded onon08/04/2026 (Downloaded 08/04/2026atat10:30:30 08:51:30AM) PM) [2026:RJ-JD:14231] (51 of 58) [CW-148/2001] determined by the Regional Settlement Commissioner. The correspondence issued by the Regional Settlement Commissioner fixing the price of various parcels of lands further indicates that the authorities intended to settle the claims expeditiously by offering the lands to the persons in possession. This communication is not under challenge and not disputed.
62) It is also evident that Kalu Khan was in possession of the land even prior to declaration of subject lands as evacuee properties. The eviction notice on record corroborates his continuous possession. The vesting of property under the Act of 1954 operates only in respect of the interest and rights of the evacuee, and not the rights of the person in occupation.
63) In this regard, it is relevant to refer to section 18 of Act, 1950 which reads hereunder:
"18. Occupancy or tenancy rights not to be extinguished.-(1) Where the rights of an evacuee in any land or in any house or other building consist or consisted of occupancy or tenancy rights, nothing contained in any law for the time being in force or in any contract or in any instrument having the force of law or in any decree or order of any Court, shall extinguish or be deemed to have extinguished any such rights either on the tenant becoming an evacuee within the meaning of this Act or at any time thereafter so as to prevent such rights from vesting in the Custodian under the provisions of this Act or to prevent the Custodian from exercising all or any of the powers conferred on him by this Act in respect of any such rights, and, notwithstanding anything contained in any such law, contract, instrument, decree or order, neither the evacuee nor the Custodian, whether as an occupancy tenant or as a tenant for a certain time, monthly or otherwise, of any land, or house or other buildings, shall be liable to be ejected or be deemed to have become so liable on any ground whatsoever for any default of-
(D.B. SAW/183/2014 has been filed in this matter. Please refer the same for further orders) (Uploaded onon08/04/2026 (Downloaded 08/04/2026atat10:30:30 08:51:30AM) PM) [2026:RJ-JD:14231] (52 of 58) [CW-148/2001]
(a) the evacuee committed after he became an evacuee or within a period of one year immediately preceding the date of his becoming an evacuee; or
(b) the Custodian.
(2) Where any person acquires or has acquired any rights under a Provincial Act or a State Act in respect of any property by reason of being in possession of that property, whether in pursuance of a grant, lease, or allotment made by the Custodian or otherwise, the acquisition of such rights shall not in any way affect or be deemed to have affected the rights and powers conferred on the Custodian under this Act in respect of that property.]"
64) The above provision protects the occupancy or tenant rights of person in possession. Consequently, even after declaration of properties as evacuee properties, the rights of the occupant or tenant continue to subsist even after lands vest in the custodian. In view of these complexities, the authorities in the highest appear to have taken a general decision to dispose of the properties by allotting such lands to the persons in possession upon fixation of the price. Although the format of the Sanad corresponds to that prescribed under Rule 34-G of the Rules of 1955, the manner of disposal is akin to allotment by fixing consideration, rather than by resorting to public auction or tender. Merely because such a format was adopted, it cannot be concluded that the proceedings were confined only to displaced persons.
65) This Court also noticed certain confusion with regard to acquisition of evacuee properties in the notification of vesting, which appear to have arisen due to general notifications issued under Section 12 without specifying the details of the properties in the Schedule at the time of acquisition under the Act of 1954. The letter dated 06.11.1965 issued by the Regional Settlement (D.B. SAW/183/2014 has been filed in this matter. Please refer the same for further orders) (Uploaded onon08/04/2026 (Downloaded 08/04/2026atat10:30:30 08:51:30AM) PM) [2026:RJ-JD:14231] (53 of 58) [CW-148/2001] Commissioner, which was never challenged, clearly specifies the price of the lands. However, the revisional authority concluded that the challan amount was paid only for a part of the land. There is no indication as to the basis for such a conclusion, as no relevant documents were verified or called for from the concerned authorities. Therefore, such a finding is not supported by any cogent material. Official acts carry presumption of validity unless rebutted by evidence demonstrating that they were not performed in accordance with law. Once a decision was taken and the value of the land was fixed, it presupposes that the authorities opted to dispose of the land by allotment upon payment of the determined price, instead of adopting the regular modes of public auction or tender for sales to persons other than displaced persons. Such a course is a recognized procedure under Rule 87 of the Rules of 1955. Therefore, it cannot be said that the Sanad was not granted in accordance with the prescribed procedure.
66) An argument has also been advanced that the property was transferred to the Nagar Palika, and that the Nagar Palika ought to have been heard before the grant of any Sanand. This argument is also not tenable. Once the land had already been declared as evacuee property and acquired by the Central Government in the year 1962 by virtue of a general notification, any allotment by the State Government, which has no right or title, in favour of the Nagar Palika, cannot be regarded as creation of an interest in properties and it cannot be treated as a legally valid conferment of right in favour of Nagarpalika. A person or authority having no right or title over a property cannot transfer any such right, title, or possession to a Municipality. Therefore, (D.B. SAW/183/2014 has been filed in this matter. Please refer the same for further orders) (Uploaded onon08/04/2026 (Downloaded 08/04/2026atat10:30:30 08:51:31AM) PM) [2026:RJ-JD:14231] (54 of 58) [CW-148/2001] this contention deserves to be rejected. Furthermore, neither the State Government nor the Municipality has produced any record to demonstrate how the State Government acquired title and possession of the subject lands, particularly when such lands had already been declared as evacuee properties and were acquired under Section 12 of the Act of 1954. Accordingly, this contention is also rejected at the threshold.
67) Dealing with the power of Settlement Commissioner to take cognizance suo moto of the proceedings, it is relevant to refer to Section 22 of the Act of 1954, which reads as under:-
"22. Appeals to Chief Settlement Commissioner--
(1) Subject to the provisions of sub-section (2), any person aggrieved by an order of the Settlement Officer or a managing officer under this Act may, within thirty days from the date of the order, prefer an appeal to the Settlement Commissioner in such form and manner as may be prescribed :
Provided that the Settlement Commissioner may entertain the appeal after the expiry of the said period of thirty days, if he is satisfied that the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from filing the appeal in time.
(2) No appeal shall lie from an order of the Settlement Officer under Section 5 if the difference between the amount of public dues as determined by the Settlement Officer and that as admitted by the applicant is less than one thousand rupees or such other amount not exceeding one thousand Rupees as may be specified by the Central Government in this behalf by notification in the Official Gazette. (3) The Settlement Commissioner may, after hearing the appeal, confirm, vary or reverse the order appealed from and pass such order in relation thereto as he deems fit."
68) A reading of the above provision, it is clear that the Settlement Commissioner is designated as an appellate authority (D.B. SAW/183/2014 has been filed in this matter. Please refer the same for further orders) (Uploaded onon08/04/2026 (Downloaded 08/04/2026atat10:30:30 08:51:31AM) PM) [2026:RJ-JD:14231] (55 of 58) [CW-148/2001] against orders passed by the Managing Officer (or the Settlement Officer). This statutory right of appeal is conferred upon persons aggrieved by such orders. The appellate authority itself cannot be regarded as an aggrieved person. In the context of facts on hand, the persons aggrieved could be either Managing Officer or the Central Government and no other person. The Appellate Authority cannot take suo motto cognizance of appeal in the absence of properly instituted appeal. There is a prescribed procedure for filing of appeal, and an appeal is required to be filed within 30 days along with the requisite fee. In the present case, the appeal was taken up on 07.10.1972, whereas the impugned order is dated 15.06.1971. The appeal is, therefore, clearly barred by limitation, as it was filed beyond the statutory period of 30 days.
Accordingly, the cognizance taken by the Settlement Commissioner, which forms the very foundation of the entire proceedings, is without jurisdiction.
69) Even assuming, for the sake of argument, that the Appellate Authority could be an aggrieved party and he could initiate suo motu proceedings under Section 22 of the Act of 1954 but atleast he could not adjudicate his own appeal. An authority acting as an aggrieved party cannot simultaneously assume the role of adjudicator to decide its own grievance. On this ground as well, the foundational proceedings before the District Magistrate cum Settlement Commissioner are unsustainable in the eyes of law.
70) Another aspect of the case is that no appeal was preferred by the State Government represented by the District Collector, or by the Municipality against the findings of the (D.B. SAW/183/2014 has been filed in this matter. Please refer the same for further orders) (Uploaded onon08/04/2026 (Downloaded 08/04/2026atat10:30:30 08:51:31AM) PM) [2026:RJ-JD:14231] (56 of 58) [CW-148/2001] Settlement Commissioner who has held that the entire lands are evacuee properties and had vested in the compensation pool under Section 12 of the Act of 1954. In the absence of any such appeal, the said finding has attained finality. Once such finality has been reached, a person claiming rights and title under Kalu Khan by virtue of purchase cannot be permitted to contend that Kalu Khan had no right to claim the Sanad. Such a contention cannot form the basis for the revisional authority to set aside the proceedings. The revisional authority has also failed to take into consideration the material evidence available on record, which demonstrates that the entire proceedings initiated by the Settlement Commissioner are vitiated for want of jurisdiction and for violation of the fundamental principles of natural justice. The contentions which were set up at later point of time are not part of notice of settlement commissioner which is the genesis of present proceedings.
71) Furthermore, the findings recorded by the revisional authority that the Sanad suffers from fraud and forgery are based on the conduct of the Managing Officer and the applicants. The fact of an immediate sale following the grant of the Sanad, by itself, does not constitute proof of fraud. At best, it may give rise to suspicion. However, suspicion cannot replace the proof. Further, notice of settlement commissioner did not refer fraud and forgery. Therefore, such conclusions are without any pleadings and legal basis and contrary to evidence on record. The orders of revisional authority are also required to be set aside. Consequently, the entire proceedings of the District Collector cum Settlement Commissioner as well as the revisional authority are required to (D.B. SAW/183/2014 has been filed in this matter. Please refer the same for further orders) (Uploaded onon08/04/2026 (Downloaded 08/04/2026atat10:30:30 08:51:31AM) PM) [2026:RJ-JD:14231] (57 of 58) [CW-148/2001] be set aside and the Sanand dated 15.06.1972 is required to be confirmed.
72) The impugned orders are also liable to be set aside on the ground of non-joinder of proper and necessary parties. The necessary parties to the present litigation are Central Government, Managing Officer (under Act, 1954) and Competent Officer ( under Act,1951). They are not made parties before the appellant authority and revisional authority. Without them, the authorities should not have decided questions relating to acquisition, sale and proper procedure were being followed or not.
73) A close reading of Sanad, this court finds that there are certain clerical errors. In the Sanad, the extent of land mentioned is 159 Bighas 13 Biswas. The revenue records reflect 149 Bighas 08 Biswas. There is also typographical error with regard the date of the publication of notification in the official gazette acquiring the land for public purpose being the purpose of relief and compensation to displaced person. The error with regard to extent of land is concerned, it was on account of reference of extent of lands in various communication particularly, the communication dated 06.11.1965 from the Regional Settlement Commissioner. Further, the error with regard to date of notification for acquisition of land was result of confusion resulting from general notifications issued from time to time under section 12 of Act,1954. Such errors do not vitiate the grant of Sanad.
74) In the result, both the writ petitions are allowed and the entire proceedings of the District Collector-cum-Settlement Commissioner as well as the Revisional authority are set aside both on merits and jurisdictional aspects. Consequently, the Sanad (D.B. SAW/183/2014 has been filed in this matter. Please refer the same for further orders) (Uploaded onon08/04/2026 (Downloaded 08/04/2026atat10:30:30 08:51:31AM) PM) [2026:RJ-JD:14231] (58 of 58) [CW-148/2001] dated 15.06.1972 is confirmed however, it shall be confined to 149 Bighas 08 Biswas and notification of acquisition shall be treated as 20.07.1962.
75) In the circumstances, no order as to costs.
76) Pending interlocutory applications, if any, shall stand disposed of.
(MUNNURI LAXMAN),J NK/-
(D.B. SAW/183/2014 has been filed in this matter. Please refer the same for further orders) (Uploaded onon08/04/2026 (Downloaded 08/04/2026atat10:30:30 08:51:31AM) PM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)