Deeparam and ors. Vs. the State of Rajasthan and ors.

Deeparam and ors. vs The State of Rajasthan and ors.

Disposition Petition allowed Court Rajasthan Decided Nov 28, 1978

~4 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/758693

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/758693
Court: Rajasthan High Court
Judge: S.C. Agrawal, J.
Decided On: Nov 28, 1978
Case Number: S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2049 of 1973
Subject: Property
Disposition: Petition allowed

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Administration of Evacuee Property Act, 1950 - Section 2(f) and Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954--Section 12--Respondent not stepped from acquiring property & allotting it to displaced person in 1966--Held, order of Managing officer of '28-2-1966 cannot be ignored.;If the State Gover...

Key legal issue: Property
Outcome / disposition: Petition allowed

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Deeparam and ors.

Respondent

The State of Rajasthan and ors.

Legal References

Cases Referred: Smt. Raiibai v. Union of India and Ors. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.
Reported In: 1978WLN(UC)400

Excerpt

administration of evacuee property act, 1950 - section 2(f) and displaced persons (compensation and rehabilitation) act, 1954--section 12--respondent not stepped from acquiring property & allotting it to displaced person in 1966--held, order of managing officer of '28-2-1966 cannot be ignored.;if the state government has failed to take steps to challenge the orders of the managing officer, allotter g a particular had on the footing that it was evacuee property and forms part of the compensation pool, it is not open to the state government to ignore the said order.;it is, therefore, held that the respondents, are cot entitled to ignore the order dated 28th february, 1906 passed by the maraging officer sri ganganagar, alloting the lands in dispute to the petitioners end to allot the said lands, either temporarily or permanently to other persons.;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 attained the age of eighteen years - it is with the enactment of the juvenile justice act, 2000, that in section 2(k) a juvenile or child was defined to mean a child who had not completed eighteen years of a ge which was given prospective prospect - appellant was about sixteen years of age on the date of commission of the alleged offence and had not completed eighteen years of age when the juvenile justice act, 2000, came into force - juvenile act, of 2000 has been given retrospective effect by rule 12 of juvenile justice rule, 2007 - as such, accused has to be treated ..........ganganagar whereby the lands in dispute have been allotted to the petitioners on the footing that the state was evacuee property and had vested in the central government under the provisions of the displaced persons (compensation and rehal ilitation) act, 1954 similar question arose before this court in smt. raiibai v. union of india and ors. s.b. civil writ petition no. 159/1973 decided on 30-8-1978, wherein it has been held that if the state government has failed to take step to challenge the orders of the managing officer, alloting a particular land on the footing that it was evacuee property and forms part of the compensation pool, it is not open to the state government to ignore the said order. the aforesaid decision is fully applicable to the facts of the present case and it is therefore, held to at the respondents are not entitled to ignore the order dated 28th february, 1966 passed by the managing officer, sri ganganagar, alloting the lands in dispute to the petitioners and to allot the said lands, either temporarily or permanently to other persons.4. the writ petition is, therefore, allowed and a writ is issued, directing the respondents to comply with the order dated 28th february, 1966 passed by the managing officer. shri. ganganagar, alloting the lands to the petitioners. the respondents are further restrained from alloting the lands covered by order dated 28th february. 1966 to any other person. there will be no order as to costs in this petition.

Full Judgment

S.C. Agrawal, J.

1. The petitioners in this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution are displaced persons who have migrated to India from Pakistan in 1947. As part of compensation payable to them for the property left by them in Pakistan, the Managing Officer Sri Ganganagar, allotted to the petitioners lands measuring 100 Bighas in Khasra Nos. 60, 101 and 87 in village Jiwandesar in revenue tehsil Anupgarh. The said lands originally formed part of the Jagir of Chhatargarh & were recorded in the names of Mohamed Iyar, Kalu and Jan Mohd in the revenue records prepared in Samwat 2003-2004. The case of the petitioners is that the said Muslim Khatedars migrated to Pakistan some time in March, 1947 and the said lands became evacuee property under Section 2(2) of the Bikaner State Evacuee Administration of Property Order, 1948 as well under Section 2(f) of the Administration'of the Evacuee Property Act, 1950 & the said evacuee property vested in the Central Govt. under Section 12 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954, and formed part of the compensation pool established for the purpose of rehabilitation of displaced persons. As the Tehsidar (Revenue) Anupgarh & the Tehsildar Colonisation, Rajasthan Canal Project, Anupgarh (Gharsana) failed to deliver the possession of the lands allotted to the petitioners by the Managing Officer u/o dated 28-2-1966 & preceded to allot the same to other persons, the petitioners filed this petition for the issue of a writ restraining the respondents from allotting any part of the land in question to any person in, any manner and also for the issue of writ, direction or order, directing the respondents to hand-over the possession of the said land to the petitioners.

2. In the reply to the writ petition filed on behalf of the respondents, it is claimed that lands in dispute belorged to Capt Prince Amersinghji of Chattargarh Estate and that the said estate has vested in, the State under the Rajasthan Land Reforms and Resumption of Jagirs Act, 1954. As no action was taken regarding declaration of the said lards as evacuee property prior to the vesting of the estate in the State, the said lards, could rot be declared as evacuee property by the Central Government and they cid not vest in the j Custodian. In the said reply it is claimed that Tehsildar, Anupgarh was justified in refusing to give possession of lend to the petitioners and it was as further stated that the Tehsildar, Colonisation, Gharsana, is fully competent to make orders for temporary or permanent allotment of the lards in dispute to eligible lands-less persons and that such allotments were being trade in accordance with the Rajasthan Colorisation (Temporary Cultivation leases) Conditions, 1955 since the year 1971-72.

3. The question that arises from the pleadings of the parties is whether the lands in dispute had become evacuee property under the law relating to the declaration of Evacuee Property which was in operation in the erstwhile State of Bikaner and whether it is open to the State Government to challenge the order of allotment dated 28th February, 1966 passed by the Managing Officer, Shri Ganganagar whereby the lands in dispute have been allotted to the petitioners on the footing that the state was evacuee property and had vested in the Central Government under the provisions of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehal ilitation) Act, 1954 Similar question arose before this Court in Smt. Raiibai v. Union of India and Ors. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 159/1973 decided on 30-8-1978, wherein it has been held that if the State Government has failed to take step to challenge the orders of the Managing Officer, alloting a particular land on the footing that it was evacuee property and forms part of the compensation pool, it is not open to the State Government to ignore the said order. The aforesaid decision is fully applicable to the facts of the present case and it is therefore, held to at the respondents are not entitled to ignore the order dated 28th February, 1966 passed by the Managing Officer, Sri Ganganagar, alloting the lands in dispute to the petitioners and to allot the said lands, either temporarily or permanently to other persons.

4. The writ petition is, therefore, allowed and a writ is issued, directing the respondents to comply with the order dated 28th February, 1966 passed by the Managing Officer. Shri. Ganganagar, alloting the lands to the petitioners. The respondents are further restrained from alloting the lands covered by order dated 28th February. 1966 to any other person. There Will be no order as to costs in this petition.

Same Court & Year Rajasthan · 1978 Same Parties Deeparam and ors. vs The State of Rajasthan and ors. Same Subject Property Same Judge S.C. Agrawal, J.

Property