1974 PLP 154 (SCMR)

The house was transferred to Abdul Karim, respondent, a claimant displaced person who was allotted the house on 2nd July 1957, but had not succeeded in obtaining Possession in spite of the order of ejectment passed against the appellant. His case was therefore covered by the extended definition of "possession" under section 2 (6) of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958. An appeal preferred by the appellant to the Additional Settlement Commissioner and a further revision petition filed before the Settlement commissioner against the order of transfer in favour of Abdul Karim were respectively dismissed by the Additional Settlement Comr4issioner and Settlement Commissioner. The appellant thereupon filed Writ Petition No. 1910/R of 1963 in the High Court which was dismissed by a learned Single Judge on 30th June 1969. A Letters Patent Appeal preferred by the appellant was also dismissed in limine by a detailed order passed by the Division Bench on 10th November 1969. Leave to appeal was granted to the appellant to consider the pleas that the entitlement of the appellant and the transfer of the house as previous allottee in possession was misconstrued by the Settlement authorities and that the respondent was not entitled to tile benefit of extended definition of "possession" under section 2 (6) of the Displaced Persons (Compensa tion and Rehabilitation) Act as no ejectment proceedings were initiated for his benefit. We have examined the record and agree with the findings recorded by the Settlement authorities and the High Court that the allotment in favour of the appellant in 1950 was at first cancelled by the Deputy Rehabilitation Commissioner and orders for his ejectment and allotment of the house to a suitable applicant were made on 11‑5‑1957. This order was eventually confirmed by tae Additional District Rehabilitation Officer on 4th June 1959. The appellant did not move against this order which thereby obtained finality. The grounds on which the order of cancellation of allotment in favour of the appellant and his ejectment are based are quite cogent and well founded. The record revealed that, the appellant was not in occupation of that house and had passed it on to one Feroze Din, a local. He encroached upon 2 kanals and 14 marlas of adjoining evacuee land, raised a compound wall around it and built one room in it. These findings were recorded after spot inspection and an inquiry made with notice to the appellant. His counsel was heard. The appellant had, therefore, no legal entitlement to the transfer of the house on tile basis of his earlier allotment and possession. Sh. Abdur Rashid, learned counsel for the appellant next contended that while conditions 1 and 2 of the Notification dated 9th September 1960, issued by the Central Government under section 2 (6) of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act were fulfilled the third condi tion was not complied with as no proceeding for ejectment of the appellant were initiated for the benefit of the respondent. On the report submitted by the Assistant Rehabilitation Officer on a date which does not appear on the record, the Deputy Rehabilitation Commissioner on 11‑5‑157 passed the following order "The house should be allotted to a deserving refugee and ejectment proceedings started against unauthorised occupants." The "unauthorised occupants" included the appellant and Feroze Din local. On 2‑7‑1957, the Deputy Rehabilitation Commissioner allotted the house to the respondent. Copy of the order is placed on the record as Annexure L‑1 at page 66 of the Paper Book. On appeal by Saadat Ali, the Additional District Rehabilitation Officer remanded the case to the Circle Officer to examine the case afresh. The parties were heard and on the basis of the departmental record, the Additional District Rehabilitation Officer by order dated 4th June 1959 found as follows :‑ "The father and other relations of Mr. Saadat Ali Parwari have got allotment of house in village Amar Sidhu. He has been living with his father and has very recently shifted to a room of the property in dispute, in order to complicate matters and press home the advantage of the allotment order collusively obtained by him. The house belongs to Mohan Singh. The total area is about 1 kanal and 6 marlas and plinth area is about 3 marlas. Mr. Saadat Ali has built one kacha room and has surrounded an area of about 4 kanals with kacha walls. This shows that he has not only unauthoris edly built a kacha room but has also encroached upon piece of land measuring about 2 kanals 14 marlas of some other evacuee and has joined it with the property in dispute. His allotment already stands cancelled in view of D. R. C.'s order dated I1‑5‑1957 on pages 121‑122 of the file. 1, therefore, direct him to surrender possession of the property in dispute i.e., the room opening on the courtyard and demolish unauthorised construction and the kacha walls within a week failing which action will be taken against him under rules. The verandah falling along the main road is in possession of a refugee family and its ejectment not advisable at this stage. The case of allotment of the property with the exception of the verandah will be referred to allotment board and when it is got vacated." The order for the ejectment of the appellant passed earlier on 11‑5‑1.957 was thus reaffirmed. He was further required to demolish the four walls and the room he had built around the adjoining evacuee land measuring 2 kanals and 14 marlas. The direction in the concluding part of the order that the case for allotment of the property be referred to the Board is in regard to the evacuee land encroached upon by the appellant and not in regard to the house which stood already allotted to the respondent. On these facts it can fairly be concluded that the ejectment proceedings were initiated against the appellant both from the house and the adjoining property encroached upon by him. The order for ejectment from the house was therefore for the benefit of the respondent who was its allottee. The third condition of the Notification under section 2 (6) was thus fulfilled to entitle the respondent to apply for transfer of the house. Both the grounds raised in support of the appeal thus fail. It may be observed at the same time that the transfer in favour of the respondent is confined to house No. SE‑311/273 and does not include the adjoining evacuee land which has been encroached upon by the appellant. The appeal is, accordingly, dismissed, but without making any order as to costs. Appeal dismissed.