ORDER
Y.R. Meena, C.J.
1. Three Civil Applications have been filed in Misc. Civil Application No. 2706 of 2006 in Special Civil Application No. 15239 of 2006. The main petition i.e. Special Civil Application No. 15239 of 2006 was filed by one Shri Nirav Vinodchandra Shah, an Advocate by profession under Article 226 of the Constitution of India branding the said writ petition as Public Interest Litigation (SPIL' for short) invoking fundamental rights under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India. In the above petition, it was mainly contended that the petitioner is one of the residents of Vasana village of city of Ahmedabad and holding property in Vasana village. According to him, it is personal Inam village as per record of rights and by way of public interest litigation, the petitioner wanted to draw the attention of this Court against arbitrariness, high-handedness and illegality of the respondents whereby the claim of the property viz. the entire Vasana village viz. Survey No. 1 to 434, Taluka Ahmedabad is pending for consideration of the Competent Officer under the provisions of the Evacuee Properties (Separation) Act, 1951 (hereinafter referred as 'the Act' for short) since 1957 and the same is not finally adjudicated till date. According to him, during the pendency of the said claim, any property purchased by any of the member of public would be ultimately subject to outcome of above proceedings and therefore, appropriate directions be given to the respondent authorities by issuing writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ to the respondents, and further, this Court may direct the authority to immediately take steps pursuant to the C.O. Case No. 1482 of 1957 which is pending and to complete the said proceedings as expeditiously as possible and to protect the interest of the public at large by declaring that the property of the entire village Vasana (Survey No. 1 to 434), Taluka Ahmedabad is the composite evacuee property and to maintain status quo with regard to the properties in question since the evacuee share vested in the Government.
2. It is to be noted that on the application for amendment i.e. Civil Application No. 9300 of 2006, by order dated 8.8.2006, we permitted impleadment of the applicant - Amjadali Gazanfarali Bukhari (Petitioner of Special Civil Application No. 21996 of 2005) being necessary party, to be joined as party respondent No. 3 in Special Civil Application No. 15239 of 2006.
3. The claim of the petitioner of PIL (Nirav Vinodchandra Shah) was contested by the State and it was submitted that no public interest is involved and the petition cannot be maintained.
4. It is pertinent to note that the respondent No. 3-applicant (Civil Application No. 1437 of 2007)-Amjadali Gazanfarali Bukhari has also filed affidavit and placed certain documents on record and claimed that C.O. Case No. 1482 of 1957 has remained pending and the Competent Officer has failed to adjudicate the matter and even the Custodian has also not taken care or pain to see that the matter is adjudicated and thus, deprived the respondent No. 3 of his legitimate claim of getting his share and dues.
5. It requires to be noted that the main petition i.e. Special Civil Application No. 15239 of 2006 came to be disposed of by our oral order dated 26.09.2006, which is reproduced as under:
This petition is in the nature of Public Interest Litigation.
The grievance of the petitioner is that there are evacuee properties in Vasna village, City Taluka Ahmedabad and the said properties are being encroached by the encroachers but no steps are taken by the State Government to stop and check such encroachments on the evacuee properties. The evacuee properties in question have been so declared by the erstwhile Bombay State, more particularly, Office of the Custodian of Evacuee Property, Bombay vide notification dated 16th April, 1951 which is produced at Annexure-A to the petition. The relevant part of the Notification dated 16th April, 1951 reads as under:
The Additional custodian of Evacuee Property, Bombay is pleased to notify for general information, the list of evacuee properties specified in the schedule annexed hereto, which have vested in him under Sub-section (3) of Section 7 of the Administration of Evacuee Property Act, 1950.
Sr.No. Description Locality1. Right, title and interest of Vasna (City Taluka Ahmedabad)Shri Muzaff-arali Ahmed Bukhariin one anna share in the Inam Village of Vasna City, TalukaAhmedabad2. House bearing C.S. No. 2272/C 1 Ward II, Ahmedabad.of Shahpur Street 40 and Munic-ipal Census No. 1232/B at LalDarwaja, Ahmedabad belonging toMuzaffarali A. Bukhari.Shri Kamal B. Trivedi, learned Advocate General for the State submits that there was only one anna share of the one of the trustees amongst 16 trustees who left India for Pakistan. There was no claimant for allotment on the basis of property which declared as evacuee property. Though they have not taken any final decision so far but he assures this Court that the respondent authorities will identify the evacuee properties in Vasna Village City Taluka Ahmedabad as per the notification dated 16th April, 1951 and deal with the property in question in accordance with law within three months. He also assures that the State Authorities will not permit anyone to encroach upon the evacuee property so declared by notification dated 16th April, 1951.
Considering the submissions, when the learned Advocate General assured this Court that the evacuee property or a part thereof so declared by the notification dated 16th April, 1951 will not be permitted to be encroached by anyone in any manner, we see no justification to give any further direction. However, we direct the respondent authorities to take final decision regarding the evacuee properties within three months in accordance with law and submit the compliance report to this Court.
The petition stands disposed of accordingly with aforesaid directions.
Notice stands discharged.
6. Thus, so far as the main writ petition i.e. Special Civil Application No. 15239 of 2006 is concerned, the petition was disposed of by the above order by giving appropriate directions to the respondent authorities to take final decision regarding evacuee properties within three months in accordance with law and submit compliance report to this Court.
7. Thereafter, Misc. Civil Application (for directions) and three Civil Applications came to be filed by the petitioner of PIL and the respondent No. 3 of Special Civil Application No. 15239 of 2006 seeking various directions to the respondent authorities.
8. Misc. Civil Application No. 2706 of 2006 was filed by the petitioner of Special Civil Application No. 15239 of 2006 with a prayer to direct the respondents to maintain status quo of the composite evacuee property which is subject matter of this case.
9. In Civil Application No. 1437 of 2007, the original respondent No. 3 and the applicant in Civil Application prayed for directions to the State Government and Union of India to appoint Competent Officer under the provisions of the Evacuee Interest (Separation) Act, 1951 to decide C.O. Case No. 1482 of 1957 within 30 days.
10. Civil Application No. 1438 of 2007 is filed by the petitioner of Special Civil Application No. 15239 of 2006 (Nirav Vinodchandra Shah) to seek directions to the State Government to explain as to why C.O. Case No. 1482 of 1957 has not yet been decided so far and for adequate steps to be taken so as not to deprive the rightful claim of the owner and to safeguard their property rights from encroachment made by the builders in violation of existing laws and also to appoint the Competent Officer under the provisions of the Act.
11. Lastly, Civil Application No. 1439 of 2007 came to be filed by the petitioner of Special Civil Application seeking directions to the Registrar of this Court to file criminal complaint under Section 199 of the Indian Penal Code against the Deputy Custodian Evacuee property for making false statement so as to mislead this Court by filing incorrect affidavits.
12. Thus, after disposal of the main petition i.e. Special Civil Application No. 15239 of 2006 by order dated 26.09.2006, all these Civil Applications filed by either the petitioner or original respondent No. 3 of that petition to seek certain directions to the respondent authorities qua pending dispute and also declaration about status of the property and decision on the claim agitated under the Act.
13. It is pertinent to note that considering the facts and circumstances brought to our notice in Misc. Civil Application, we have passed the following order on Misc. Civil Application No. 2706 of 2006 on 02.11.2006.
The main petition i.e. Special Civil Application No. 15239 of 2006 was disposed of by our order dated 26.09.2006 with certain directions. Thereafter, this application has been moved raising grievance that in spite of the directions, some constructions are being raised and the evacuee property land is being encroached.
In reply, allegations are denied.
Considering the submissions and on assurance of Shri Kamal B. Trivedi, learned Advocate General for the State, we order to list this application after three months. Mean while, final decision be taken regarding rights of the parties on the basis of the application dated 16th April, 1951 and that decision be taken within three months. If any construction is raised on the evacuee property land, the same will be subject to the result and final order on this Misc. Civil Application.
List in 1st week of February, 2007.
14. It is to be noted that several contentions of law and facts have been raised by the learned Counsels appearing on behalf of the respective parties and voluminous record was produced in support and against their contentions which were not part of the main Special Civil Application. The arguments canvassed and submissions made are mainly on behalf of the original respondent No. 3 and learned Advocate General appearing on behalf of the State of Gujarat.
15. Learned Counsel appearing for the respondent No. 3 has vehemently urged that proceedings initiated by the legal heirs of the original evacuee pursuant to the notification dated 16.04.1951 by which it was specifically prayed that notwithstanding the fact that the evacuee interest in the property is one Anna share with 15 Annas remaining with the owners who are non evacuees having stayed in India, the respondent - State has failed to discharge its duties and obligations under the Evacuee Act and has tacitly permitted persons to occupy the said lands unauthorisedly, illegally and without the authority of law. Since the claims in C.O. Case No. 1482 of 1957 remained undecided by the authority, various prayers have been made by the respondent No. 3-applicant to protect the composite evacuee property of the petitioner-applicant in the entire Vasna village area of city Ahmedabad and has also prayed by the applicant-respondent No. 3 to adjudicate the same and determine his share as claimed.
16. According to the learned Counsel appearing for the applicant-respondent No. 3, the claim put forth before the Competent Officer / authority under the Act pursuant to the notification dated 16.04.1951 in case if the share of the evacuee in evacuee properties is not separated having regard to the nature of properties, it was submitted that non evacuee claimants and other persons interested should be called to purchase one Anna share of land other than those which are acquired or being acquired and in case the opponents and other sharers are found to be unwilling to purchase one Anna share of the evacuee properties, the properties be sold and the applicant be paid one Anna share out of sale proceeds. It was also prayed that properties be apportioned and separate share be awarded on the basis of one Anna share in Rupee of 16 Annas.
17. Learned Counsel further submitted that Special Civil Application No. 21996 of 2005 preferred by the respondent No. 3 is separate proceedings and when the rights and interests of the respondent No. 3 are likely to be affected in case if the prayer of the petitioner is accepted by this Court, the respondent No. 3 is within his right to defend his case and therefore, the request made by him in Civil Application No. 1437 of 2007 need not be rejected on this ground.
18. Learned Counsel has further submitted that initiation of various proceedings by the State Government under the Bombay Public Trust Act, 1950 and the Gujarat Devasthan Inams Abolition Act, 1969, the claim arising out of the notification of 1951 and the rights accrued therein and claim forwarded by the respondent No. 3 pursuant to that do not get affected in any manner and even framing and finalization of the Town Planning Scheme notified under the Town Planning Act with regard to the lands in question will have no bearing upon the proceedings pending qua C.O. Case before the Competent Officer. Since the Custodian has taken over possession of the entire composite evacuee property, it was duty of the authority to protect the said property from encroachments and necessary communication was addressed by the Deputy Secretary, Revenue Department by letter dated 7.09.2002 to the Collector to safeguard the rights of the evacuee. Learned Counsel has heavily relied on the letter dated 07.09.2002, which reads as under:
With reference to the above subject, it is informed that as per the order of the Hon'ble High Court, the Evacuee properties situated at Mauje Vasana, Isanpur and Shahalam shall not be disposed of till the Court case pending in respect of the same, is not disposed off. Moreover, they are requested to inform the concerned officers to see that since no Tenancy Act or any other law is applicable to the evacuee properties under the provisions of D.P. (C & R) Act, 1954, the evacuee properties are not disposed of in respect of the cases including the tenancy cases as well as to inform the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal not to dispose of the land cases pertaining to the evacuee properties situated at Ahmedabad and to inform me regarding the steps taken.
19. For and in support of the contentions about the survivalrights of the evacuee pursuant to the Notification of 1951, learned Counsel has drawn attention of this Court to various provisions of the Administration of the Evacuee Property Act, 1950 (for short 'Evacuee Act'), especially, to Section 9, 10, 10A, 11, 12, 12A, 13, 14, 15, and 16 and it was reiterated that actions taken by the authorities amount to invoking inapplicable statutory provisions to defeat the rights of the applicants without leaving him with any effective legal recourse. As per the information to the respondent No. 3 under the Rights to Information Act, the proceedings under the Devasthanam Act did not even see notices being issued under the said Act and the appeal under the Bombay Public Trusts Act declaring the property to be a public trust is also pending.
20. Thus, it is submitted by the learned Counsel for the applicant-respondent No. 3 that notwithstanding the repeal of the Evacuee Interest (Separation) Act, 1951 and the Administration of Evacuee Property Act, 1950, by the Displaced Persons (Claims & Other Laws) Repeal Act, 2005, the proceedings initiated by the applicant under the Notification of 1951 are to be adjudicated upon as provided under Section 6 of the General Clauses Act and alternatively, it is submitted that the State is obliged to restore the properties to its original position as on 16.04.1951 being the date of notification under the Evacuee Act.
21. That as per the order passed on 26.09.2005 in main Special Civil Application, out of which all three Civil Applications are filed, the State is duty bound to adhere to the statements made by the learned Advocate General. It is submitted that in case if in the view of the Government about the proceedings under the Evacuee Act has been terminated on the promulgation of the Repeal Act, 2005 and nothing to be done further, then, principles of restitution would apply in view of Section 3 of the Separation Act which overrides all the laws while Section 16 of the Administration of the Evacuee Property Act, 1950 read with Section 20A of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1959 read with Rule 37 of the Administration of Evacuee Property (Central) Rules, 1950 provides for the restoration of the evacuee property. Not only that but in a letter addressed by the Government of India to the State Government and in turn, the State Government on 15.02.2006 requested this Court to recommend the name of suitable Judicial Officer to be appointed as Competent Officer under Section 4 of the Separation Act.
22. Learned Counsel has also relied upon the various authorities in support of his submissions and whenever the Act is repealed, it must be considered, except as to transactions in past and closed, as if it had never existed. The effect thereof is to obliterate the Act completely from the record of Parliament as if it had never been passed, it never existed except for the purpose of those actions which were commenced, prosecuted and concluded while it was an existing law and authority. It was submitted that in the instant case, the proceedings were initiated after notification of 1951, it remains alive and repeal of the Act will have no bearing. Learned Counsel has also relied upon the decision in the case of Kolhapur Canesugar Works Ltd. v. Union of India reported in : 2000(119)ELT257(SC) wherein the Constitution Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court has approved the view that Section 6 of the General Clauses Act applies to the repeals and not to omissions and applies when the repeal is of a Central Act or Regulation and not of a Rule.
23. Lastly, learned Counsel further submitted that there is no other remedy for the respondent No. 3 since under Section 46 of the Act, jurisdiction of Civil Court is also barred, therefore, the prayer in Civil Application preferred by the applicant-respondent No. 3 be accepted.
24. At the outset, during the course of arguments, it was submitted by Shri Kamal B. Trivedi, learned Advocate General for the State that the respondent No. 3 in this petition, has already filed Special Civil Application No. 21996 of 2005 before this Court wherein similar reliefs are claimed as claimed by the petitioner in Special Civil Application No. 15239 of 2006 and said petition i.e. Special Civil Application No. 21996 of 2005 is yet to be decided finally. Thus, according to the State authority, Special Civil Application in the form of PIL filed by the petitioner i.e. Nirav Vinodchandra Shah has no merit and the same deserves to be rejected.
25. Shri Kamal B. Trivedi, learned Advocate General appearing on behalf of the State and Shri Harin P. Rawal, learned Assistant Solicitor General for India for the Union of India have vehemently opposed grant of any relief to the respondent No. 3 on the ground that in petition filed by a citizen claiming it to be a public interest, no relief can be allowed to the respondent No. 3 and more particularly, for relief claimed in Civil Application No. 1437 of 2007 as applicant-respondent No. 3 herein has filed Special Civil Application No. 21996 of 2005 where also the directions have been sought against the respondent to conclude the proceedings of C.O. Case No. 1482 of 1957 as expeditiously as possible and to protect the composite evacuee property and to take all necessary steps to protect interest of all petitioners therein and also to appoint Competent Officer as envisaged under the Act. Thus, according to the learned Counsels appearing for the respondents, in view of the pendency of the aforesaid Special Civil Application No. 21996 of 2005 filed by the respondent No. 3, no relief as claimed in this Civil Application may be granted.
26. Learned Counsels further submitted that since Special Civil Application No. 15239 of 2006 is already disposed of, these Civil Applications claiming various reliefs need not require to be entertained, much less, no relief be granted since the prayers made in Civil Applications are beyond the scope of the main writ petition.
27. It is submitted by the learned Counsel for the State that the respondent No. 3 has no right, claim, interest or title over the endowment property where initially, as early as in 1670 A.D., the then Mogal Emperor only for revenue income of village Vasana was given in Inam by erstwhile Mugal Ruler and even Sanad was issued on 24.11.1863 by the then Governor of Bombay also revealed the same thing. According to Counsels for the respondents-Authority, what was resolved to be given by way of Inam was a factum of Scalculation of land revenue income from village Vasana utilization thereof for administration and maintenance of Devasthan 'Roja of Peer Shah-e-Alam' and not ownership title to the property as Vasana village as a whole had ever been vested in the Inamdar. Learned Counsels for the respondents have relied upon copy of the extracts from the Register of Alienated Land wherefrom it becomes clear that the total revenue income of village Vasana at that time was Rs. 2057.11 Anna and 8 paise, out of which, the amount of Rs. 307.11 Annas and 8 Paise was to be paid to the Government as fees and land revenue, as mentioned in Column No. 15 and 19 of the said Register, whereas, the remainder amount of Rs. 1750.00 was shown in Column No. 20 as 'Land Revenue Alienated' in favour of the Inamdar for the purpose of maintaining the above named Devasthan and thereafter, the remainder amount, if any, was to be shared amongst the co-sharers.
28. Even according to the learned Counsels, the property in question was already gifted by evacuee Muzaffarali Ahmadalia Bukhari to his younger brother Mumtazalia Ahmadali Bukhari by gift deed dated 25.04.1949 when the partition took place and Muzaffarali Ahmadali Bukhari migrated to Pakistan and necessary mutation entry No. 509 was recorded in revenue record on 26.04.1949. Even, the Collector and Deputy Custodian of the evacuee property, Ahmedabad confirmed the same by passing order on 16.05.1950 and later on, even as per the notification dated 16.04.1951 only indicate one Anna share in the revenue income of village Vasana which ultimately come to 1/16th share to the legal heirs who filed their statements under Section 7(1) of the Act on 3.4.1958.
29. It was further submitted that even the dispute arising out of the Enquiry Case No. 176 of 1956 initiated by Deputy Charity Commissioner under Section 19 of the Bombay Public Trust Act, 1950 passed by order dated 10.08.1962 where this 'Roja of Peer Shah-e-Alam' is held to be public trust and the same order came to be confirmed by the Charity Commissioner in Appeals No. 60 and 61 of 1962 vide order dated 20.01.1966. Not only that but upon enactment of the Gujarat Devasthan Inams Abolition Act, 1969, all the legal rights in any Devasthan subsisted immediately prior to 15.11.1969 (i.e. appointed day) came to be extinguished. It is further contended that before notices were given on 10.12.1979 and 17.12.1979 with a directions to lodge any objection with regard to the reference to Vasana Village as required under Gujarat Devasthan Inams Abolition Act, 1969, no claimants forwarded any such objection claiming any right of one Anna share of the evacuee. It is further submitted that now even the Town Planning Scheme Nos. 21, 22, and 26 have already been finalized and become part of the statute and therefore, in the year 2003 and even in Appeal from Order No. 22 of 2003 filed before this Court by the applicant herein - original respondent No. 3 for restraining the Municipal Corporation from dealing with and dispose of evacuee property, was declined.
30. Lastly, it was contended that on 6.9.2005 enactment of a legislation called 'Displaced Persons Claims and Other Laws Repeal Act, 2005' repealed all the five legislations relating to evacuee property, with the result, now nothing survives.
31. Considering the nature of controversy involved in the petition, in the interest of justice, we deem it just and proper to deal with the contentions raised by the parties in Civil Applications as well as Misc. Civil Application and therefore, it is imperative to give certain fact of the subject matter.
32. That as early as in the year 1670 A.D., 'Roja of Peer Shah-e-Alam' and endowment property situated at Dani Limda within the District of Ahmedabad for maintenance etc., taken care by one Saiyed Ahmed Hyder Walid Musamiya and income generated out of the collection of revenue of village Vasana was given in Inam by erstwhile Mugal Emperor. Later on, the H.E. Hon'ble Sir Henry Bartle Edward Frere, Governor of Bombay on 24.11.1863 issued Sanad in favour of the above endowment property and after enactment of Bombay Land Revenue Code, 1879 ('Code' for short ) as per the provisions of Section 53 of the Code, the aforesaid mentioned Sanad was entered in the Register of Alienated Lands and it was indicated that the land falls under Clause-III of the Devasthan Inam and one Saiyed Musamiya, son of Saiyed Imam Hyder Baksh was the Manager of the property. In the year 1947, upon partition, one of the heirs of the trustees of the aforesaid Devasthan called Muzaffarali Ahmadali Bukhari migrated to Pakistan and donated his One Anna share in favour of his younger brother Mumtazali Ahmadali Bukhari and necessary Mutation Entry No. 509 came to be posted in the village revenue record on 26.04.1949 as reflected from the record. Thereafter, the Collector and Deputy Custodian of Evacuee Property, Ahmedabad under Section 38(5) & 20 of Evacuee Interest (Separation) Act, 1951 has also overriding effect and jurisdiction of Civil Court is barred in certain cases. For ready reference Section 3^~EVACUEE INTEREST SEPARATION ACT 1951~^ & 20^~EVACUEE INTEREST SEPARATION ACT 1951~^ are quoted as under:
Section 3. Act to overriding other laws - Save as otherwise expressly provided in this Act, the provisions of this Act and of the rules and orders made thereunder shall have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in any other law for the time being in force or in any instrument having effect by virtue of any such law.
Section 20. Jurisdiction in Civil Courts barred in certain matters- (1) Save as otherwise expressly provided in this Act, no Civil or Revenue Court shall entertain any suit or proceeding in so far as it relates to any claim to composite property which the competent officer is empowered by or under this Act to decide, and no injunction in respect of any action taken or to be taken by the competent officer in respect of the composite property shall be granted by any Civil Court or other authority.
39. There is no dispute on the facts that Notification of 1951 was issued declaring Vasana (city Taluka Ahmedabad) as composite evacuee property and the claim being C.O. Case No. 1482 of 1957 was filed before the Competent Officer. That claim is still pending in the court of the Competent Officer. Thereafter, the Acts were repealed, but the C.O. Case is still pending before the Competent Officer as no Competent Officer is appointed and consequently, the matter remained pending for more than 50 years. Therefore, the questions arise for consideration is that whether that proceedings after repeal of the Acts come to an end, or whether the Competent Officer, inspite of repeal of the Act, should dispose of the matter in accordance with the provisions existing just prior to the date of repeal of the Act. The Apex Court in the case of Kolhapur Canesugar Works Ltd. and Anr.v. Union of India and Ors. reported in (2000) 2 SCC 536, in para-34, has held as under:
34. xxx xxxx
It is our considered view that in such a case the court is to look to the provisions in the rule which has been introduced after omission of the previous rule to determine whether pending proceedings will continue or lapse. If there is a provision therein that pending proceedings shall continue and be disposed of under the old rule as if the rule has not been deleted or omitted then such proceedings will continue. If the case is covered by Section 6 of the General Clauses Act or there is a pari materia provision in the statute under which the rule has been framed, in that case also the pending proceedings will not be affected by omission of the rule.
40. Considering the view taken by Their Lordships and provision of Clause (e) of Section 6 of the General Clauses Act, we are of the view that pending proceedings before the Competent Officer on the date of repeal will continue and the Competent Officer should dispose of C.O. Case inspite of the repeal of the Act which was pending on the date of repeal of the Act.
41. While disposing the main petition i.e. Special Civil Application No. 15239 of 2006 by our order dated 26.09.2006, we have already given suitable directions to the respondents upon statement made by Shri Kamal B. Trivedi, learned Advocate General on behalf of the State. Not only that but it was also made clear that no encroachment in any manner by anyone is to be permitted by the State functionaries. Even thereafter also, in Civil Application No. 1437 of 2007 we have given directions on 31.07.2007. Shri K.B. Trivedi, learned Advocate General has submitted that he will make proposal to the Central Government for appointment of the Competent Officer as the competent authority under Section 4^~EVACUEE INTEREST SEPARATION ACT 1951~^ of the Evacuee Interest (Separation) Act, 1951 for approval of the Central Government and thereafter, we have been told that proposal as stated by learned Advocate General has already been forwarded by the State Government to the Central Government.
42. Considering the view taken by Their Lordships and provision of Clause (e) of Section 6 of the General Clauses Act, since we are of the view that pending proceedings before the Competent Officer on the date of repeal of the Act will continue and the Competent Officer should dispose of C.O. Case, inspite of the repeal of the Acts, which was pending on the date of repeal of the Act, we direct the concerned authorities in State Government and the Government of India to take immediate steps for appointment of Competent Officer forthwith to hold and dispose of the pending matters inspite of repeal of the Acts, and on appointment the Competent Officer, the Competent Officer is directed to dispose of the claims of the applicant-respondent No. 3 in accordance with provisions of the Act which existed before repeal of the Act.
43. Considering the above situation and the facts brought to our notice, now the issue remains for our consideration is that till disposal of the C.O. Case, how the composite evacuee property notified under the Notification dated 16.04.1951 / State property in dispute can be protected from illegal construction and encroachment being raised on the aforesaid property in question.
44. The facts also brought to our notice that the composite evacuee property notified under the Notification dated 16.04.1951 / State property is being encroached by many persons and even constructions have been raised and still, illegal construction and encroachment is going on thereon. It is true that the matter in respect of the right and/or claim of the respondent No. 3-applicant involved in C.O. Case No. 1482 of 1957 is pending before the Competent Officer. In any case, the property is either the evacuee property or the property of the State Government, but in either of the case, the property in question should be protected from illegal construction and encroachment being made by the persons who take advantage of the facts, circumstances and situation and raise illegal construction / encroachment on the property in question.
45. Under the circumstances, we direct the Collector concerned and concerned authorities in Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation and A.U.D.A. to take due care and see to it that there shall be no illegal construction and/or encroachment on the composite evacuee property notified under the Notification dated 16.04.1951 / State property in question. We further direct the Collector concerned, and concerned authority in AMC and A.U.D.A that in case if any person brings to the notice of the Collector, and concerned authority in AMC and AUDA regarding illegal construction/encroachment already raised or any illegal construction or encroachment is being made on the composite evacuee property notified under the Notification dated 16.04.1951 / State property in question, they shall take immediate steps in accordance with law to protect the composite evacuee property notified under the Notification dated 16.04.1951 / State property in question and no illegal construction and/or encroachment be permitted till disposal of the said C.O. Case pending before the Competent Officer.
46. In view of the above observations, assertion made by learned Advocate General in the main petition and the directions above, all three Civil Applications including Misc. Civil Application stand disposed of.