Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Sohan Lal And 5 Ors. vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 19 December, 1986
Equivalent citations: 1986WLN(UC)741
JUDGMENT Guman Mal Lodha, J.
1. These six writ petitions relate to displaced persons from Pakistan.
2. The petitioners have alleged that they had residential houses, and agricultural lands in Sindh from where they migrated to India after partition of India.
3. Each one of them was alloted agricultural land in India by the Managing Officer of Evacuee Agricultural Property and Settlement Officer, Sri Ganganagar. Then there were series of orders changing the allotments. But the whole of the land could not be given possession of. When the petitioners claimed for taking possession that was not accepted. Vide Notification dated 6th April, 1965 (Annexure 5) on record, it was declared by the Central Government that the evacuee property described therein are acquired in accordance with Section 12(1) of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954 (here in after referred to as the Act), and thus, according to the petitioners the property became a part of compensation pool, which according to the petitioners could be utilised for the purposes of verifying claims of the displaced persons. The petitioners further alleged that an understanding was arrived at in a meeting held between the Union Minister of Supply and Rehabilitation and Revenue Minister of Govern ment of India on 24th of August, 1976. Minutes of this meeting has been placed on record as Annexure-6. By this document the Union of India agreed that the officers of the Rajasthan Government are delegated with the powers of the Central Government under Section 33 of the Act and they would review 38 cases in which land had been allotted for restricting the possession to 16 acres of land in Chhatargarh area and for directing the allottees to apply for payment of compensation in respect of their balance land as per Rules It was also agreed that these 38 allottees need to pay only the old rate of Rs. 675/- per bighas to the State Government, if they desire to acquire full Khatedari rights. It was further stated in Annexure-6 that so far as the 93 claimants to whom allotments were still to be made are concerned, the Government of Rajasthan would honour these verified claims by allotment of land in Chhatargarh area upto a maximum of 15 ordinary acres, in the ratio of 1 standard acre being equal to 8-1/2 ordinary acres and for the balance of the verified claim compensation would be paid by the Government of India to the claimants under the Act and the Rules and these new land allottees would be required to pay Rs. 1000/- per bigha for obtaining full Khatedari rights as the rate has been revised upward from Rs.675/- to 1000/- per bigha. It was also averred that the total land available with the Department of Rehabilitation in Rajasthan was 9882 acres of which a maximum of 2096 ordinary acres in Chhatargarh area would be used for allotment to the 93 claimants and for giving possession to 38 allottees. The document then says that remaining land approximately 7789 acres would be transferred to the Government of Rajasthan at rate of Rs. 480/- per standard acre. According to the petitioners their cases partly fall in the category of 38 claimants and partly within the category of 93 claimants referred in Annexure-6.
4. The respondents have filed the reply and their case is that Annexure-6 is valid in law and therefore the petitioners cases have to be dealt with according to that agreement.
5. The question whieh emerges for consideration is whether Annexure-6 is invalid as contended by Mr. Mridul. According to Mr. Mridul, it is contrary to Section 14 of the Act and also Rules 49 and 52 of the Displaced Persons Rehabilitation and Compensation Rules, 1955 (here in after referred to as the Rules) as the entire property including the land of Chhatargh became part of compensation pool by virtue of Notification Annexure-5 dated 6th April, 1965.
6. Reliance is placed on Section 12 of the Act, according to which the Central Government may acquire evacuee property by publishing Notification in the Official Gazette. Mr. Mridul's argument is that once it becomes part of the pool of compensation, it could not be transferred to the State Government by the Union of India vide Annexure-6. Section 14 Clause (2) of the Act makes a provision for compensation pool. Reliance is also placed on Rule 49, Part I of the Rules. Mr. Mridul submits that the said Rule when read with Section 14 makes it abundantly clear that the agricultural evacuee property which becomes part of the compensation pool can be utilised for satisfaction of the claim of the displaced persons. As per Part 1 of Rule 49 a displaced person having verified claim has to be paid compensation by allotment of the agricultural land. Word 'as' far as possible, used in Section 49 envisages a contigency such as one referred to in the proviso to the said Rule or presumably to a situation where sufficient agricultural land may not be available in the compensation pool. It is thus absolutely clear that the evacuee agricultural land which once becomes part of the compensation pool is not open to be utilised for the purposes other than for satisfaction of the verified claim of the displaced person. Mr. Mridul has then argued that the purpose of the Act is clearly set out in the Preamble of the Act which says that the Act is enacted to provide for payment of compensation and rehabilitation grant to displaced persons. The Statement of Objects and Reasons also leaves no doubt about this. It is noted therein that there has been a persistent demand from displaced persons that evacuee property should be transferred to them in permanent ownership. It is further stated in the Statement of Objects and Reasons that the compensation to be paid to the displaced persons will be confined to the utilisation of the acquired evacuee property in India as well as any amount realised from Pakistan on account of the difference between the values of evacuee properties in the two countries. Even the title of the Act supports this contention, it is argued by the learned Counsel. Mr. Mridul, therefore prayed as a logical consequence of the above, the petitioners become entitled to allotment of agricultucal land to satisfy the verified claim and they become entitled to a direction that the compensation of the land allotted to them be given to them forthwith and further if by the orders already made, their verified claim do not stand satisfied then further land be allotted to the petitioners. There is already an order made by the Managing Officer, Sri Gangangar on the case of Chuhar Mal, the same being Annexure-5, which details the area allotted to him for the satisfaction of the claim. It is further alleged that the petitioner Chuharmal and other petitioners are entitled to a direction that possession of the land allotted to them by the allotment orders be given to them forthwith. It was further submitted that they are further entitled to a direction that if their claims remain unsatisfied even after the allotment orders, further land may be allotted to them so as to satisfy their verified claims. The real grievance is that in all cases although the allotment was made on 9-6-1955 or near about it, but the possession has not been given to the petitioner so far, except a small part. Obviously this case relates to very involved question of facts and developments which have taken place during the last 31 years and what is sought to be implemented by process of writ petitions by this court, some allotement made in 1955.
7. In reply to para 16 of the writ petition the respondents Nos. 1 and 2 have submitted as under:
16. That in reply to para No. 16 of the writ petition, it is submitted that the Divisional Bench of the Hon'ble High Court passed its judgment dated 24-2-1984 in D.B. Civil Spl. Appeal Nos. 285/72,14/73, 61/78, 68/78, 84/79, 27/73, 286/78, 112/78, 112/79, 100/79 and 1025/74;
The D.B. Bench of the Hon'ble High Court while upholding the judgment of the learned Single Bench observed and hold as under:
In the record of rights the name of Muslim tenant appears to have been recorded earlier when they held tenancy rights in such lands. Even after the commencement of the 1948 Order or the promulgation of the Central Act if the names of Muslim tenants continued to be recorded as tenants of the lands in dispute in the record of rights it would be ineffective as under the 1948 Order the vesting was automatic and absence of an entry in the record of rights is of no consequence. As the Muslim occupants of the lands in dispute became evacuee no body cared to the require corrections made in the existing entries in the record of rights. The Managing Officer rightly alloted the Tenancy Rights in the lands in dispute to the writ petitioners and directed to concerned Tehsildar to put the respective writ petitioners in possession of land allotted to him. The applicants in the special appeal cannot proceed to allot such lands to any other person.
It is however, made clear that the writ petitioners would only be deemed to have acquired tenancy rights in the respective lands allotted to them by the Managing Officer. The writ petitioner shall not claim Khatedari rights in such lands unless proceedings in accordance with the provisions of Section 15AAA are taken, it is also clarified that the writ petitioners would be entitled to obtain possession of the agricultural lands allotted to them by the Managing Officer, only upto the ceiling limit applicable to the area in which such lands are situated.
In the result, the orders passed by the learned Single Judge, allowing the writ petitioner are upheld and all the special appeals are dismissed. The Writ Petition No. 1052 of 1974 Sohan Lal v. Union of India and Ors. is allowed and the respondents in that writ petition are directed to comply with the order passed by the Managing Officer, Sri Ganganagar alloting the tenancy rights in the lands in question to the writ petitioners.
It would thus be seen that the present one is not a case where the petitioners have got a clear undisputed title to the property and the State has deprived of its possession by unlawful methods. In my opinion the question of allotments are not free from doubt about their validity, in view of the subsequent orders passed and this court cannot under Article 226 of the Constitution direct for giving possession after 31 years, when the land might have changed so many hands. In view of this decision question of validity of Annexure-6 is of no consequence.
8. So far as the question of compensation in terms of money is concerned is and even otherwise the petitioners should resort to the remedy of filing a regular civil suit where all these seriously involved disputed questions of facts can be adjudicated after taking of evidence. The civil court is also competent to decide the question of law.
9. Consequently, with the above observations, all the six writ petitions are dismissed. Since the petitioners are displaced persons and have been fighting for the alleged rights to get justice, I would leave the parties to bear their own costs.