Skip to content


Smt. Bachan Kaur and anr. Vs. Executive Engineer, Rcp and anr. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectTenancy
CourtRajasthan High Court
Decided On
Case NumberS.B. Civil Writ No. 1883/1972
Judge
Reported in1977WLN(UC)211
AppellantSmt. Bachan Kaur and anr.
RespondentExecutive Engineer, Rcp and anr.
DispositionPetition allowed
Cases Referred and Ratiram v. Union of India
Excerpt:
.....act 1955 - section 5(44) & rajasthan lard revenue act 1956--section 91--land allotted by managing officer to rehabilitation department--held, allottee is not a trespasser and he cannot be dispossessed by the canal authorities.;writ allowed. - section 2(k), 2(1), 7 & 40 & juvenile justice (care and protection of children) rules, 2007, rule 12 & 98 & juvenile justice act, 1986, section 2(h): [altamas kabir & cyriac joseph, jj] determination as to juvenile - appellant was found to have completed the age of 16 years and 13 days on the date of alleged occurrence - appellant was arrested on 30.11.1998 when the 1986 act was in force and under clause (h) of section 2 a juvenile was described to mean a child who had not attained the age of sixteen years or a girl who had not..........the allotment order passed by the managing officer the petitioners were put into possession of the land allotted to them on 17.4.1963. since then the petitioners hive been in possession of the lands allotted to them. in 1968 the executive engineer, rajasthan canal project asked the petitioners to leave the possession of the laid. the petitioners there up on approached the rehabilitation authorities and on 10th june 1968 an order was passed by the managing officer, sri ganganagar for maintenance of status quo but inspite of the said order the council authorities continued to interfere with the possession of the petitioners. aggrieved by the aforesaid action of the executive engineer, rajasthan council project, the petitioners filed this writ petition for the issue of a writ restraining.....
Judgment:

S.C. Agrawal, J.

1. In this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the petitioners are displaced persons from Peshawar in Pakistan. In lieu of the agricultural lards possessed by them in Pakistan the pet rioters were jointly allotted 35 bighas of land in Khasra No. 99 situated in village Jeewan Desar, Tehsil Anupgarh by the Managing Officer of the Rehabilitation Department of the Government of India by allotment Older dated 10.4.1963. The aforesaid land was allotted out of the land in the Khattedari of Captain Prince Amar Singh of Chhatargarh (sic) in the erstwhile State of Bikaner. The said Captain Prince Amar Singh had given the said land to one Gulam Rasul for cultivation and the said Gulam Rasul had field to Pakistan in 1947 & so the land measuring 72 bighas became vested in the Custodian of Evacuee Property. In parsuance of the allotment order passed by the Managing Officer the petitioners were put into possession of the land allotted to them on 17.4.1963. Since then the petitioners hive been in possession of the lands allotted to them. In 1968 the Executive Engineer, Rajasthan Canal Project asked the petitioners to leave the possession of the laid. The petitioners there up on approached the Rehabilitation authorities and on 10th June 1968 an order was passed by the Managing Officer, Sri Ganganagar for maintenance of status quo but inspite of the said order the Council authorities continued to interfere with the possession of the petitioners. Aggrieved by the aforesaid action of the Executive Engineer, Rajasthan Council Project, the petitioners filed this writ petition for the issue of a writ restraining the respondents front interfering in any way the peaceful enjoyment by the petitioners of the land in their possession.

2. In the writ petition the case of the petitioners is that the Khatedari rights of Gulam Rasul in Khasra No. 99 had vested in the Custodian of Evacuee Property end he said land had been validly allotted to the petitioners by the Managing Officer.

3. In the reply filed cm behalf of the respondents it is pleaded that Khasra No. 99 measuring 41 bighas 5 biswas situated in village Jeewan Desar, Tehsil Anupgarh, is the property of the State of Rajasthan and thus the Managing Officer had got no authority to allot any partion of it to the petitioners and that the action of the Managing Officer in allotting the land to the petitioners was without authority and beyond his jurisdiction and therefore, the petitioners have not acquired any right on the land in their possession on the basis of the allotment order pas ed by the Managing Officer.

4. I am of the view that this case is covered by the decision of this Court dated 24.4.1972 in Asharam and Anr. v. Union of India SBC Writ No 1632 of 1970 and Ratiram v. Union of India SBC Writ No. 1640 of 1970. In the aforesaid judgment it has been held that under the scheme of law with prevailed in the erstwhile State of Bikaner as soon as Muslim left far Pakistan, his property left by him automatically becomes an evacuee property and it vested in the Custodian and there was no necessity for any authority to declare it as an evidence property before it could view in the Custodian. In the said cases it was further held that a person who was in possession of the property which had been allotted to him by the Managing Officer could not be regarded as a trespasser under Section 5(44) of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act and the provisions of Section 94 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956 cannot be invoked to disposes such a person from land allotted to him of which he is in possession.

5. In view of the decision aforesaid I hold that in view of the allotment order made by the Managing Officer in favour of the petitioners the respondents are not entitled to interfere, with the possession of the petitioners on the land allotted to then in the view that the petitioners have not acquired any right en the said lend in the basis of the allotment order passed in their favour.

6. The writ petition is allowed and the respondents are restrained from interfering with the possession of the petitioners over the land allotted to them by the Managing Officer vide allotment order dated 10.4.1963. The parties will bear their own costs in this petition.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //