1983 PLP 2527 (CLC)

ORDINANCE, 1972 Section 2(b) : "appointed day" means the fifteenth day of March, 1972. Section 2(f) : "katchi abadi" means such inhabited area of evacuee land as is declared by the Chief Settlement Commissioner to be a Katchi Abadi for the purposes of this Ordinance. Section 7 : Preparation of Scheme.-The Chief Settlement Commissioner may, with the approval of the Government, prepare a scheme for carrying out the purposes of this Ordinance. DISPLACED PERSONS (LAND SETTLEMENT) ACT, 1958 Section 2(3)(b) : such evacuee land as may be declared by the Chief Settle ment Commissioner as a building site. it" SCHEME UNDER SECTION 7 OF THE ORDINANCE Section 4(a) :A locality of or above 50 tenements, existing in the form of a cluster or a colony on the evacuee land, not declared as building sites under sub-clause (b) of clause (3) of section 2 of the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1958, will, on the recommendations of the Deputy Settlement Commissioner of the area concerned, be declared as Katchi Abadi by the Chief Settlement Commissioner. Section 5 : The Deputy Settlement Commissioner should study the Ordi nance and the Scheme carefully to understand the intention behind them, their overall meanings and scope. Only those '';localities which exist on the evacuee land, not declared as building sites under the provisions of the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1958, and on which 50 or more tene ments have been constructed by their occupants on or before the 15th March, 19.72, should be recommended for being declared as Katchi Abadis by the Chief Settlement Commis sioner Section 8(a) : The Deputy Settlement Commissioner should send his recommendations for declaring any locality, alongwith detailed reasons, as Katchi Abadi by or before the 10th June, 1972 without fail. Reasons for not recommending any locality existing on evacuee land for declaring as Katchi Abadf should be specifically given. The report should contain, inter alia, the following information : (i) Name of locality. (ii) Total area of the locality to be declared as Katchi Abadi. (iii) Full particulars of khasra numbers of evacuee land on which the locality exists. (iv) Total number of tenements constructed on the locality. . .. .. . .. . .. . . . .. .. .. .. . . The bare reading of the provisions of law make crystal clear that only those localities which not only exist on the evacuee land but were also not declared as building sites under the provisions of the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1958 and on which fifty or more tenements have been constructed on or before 15th March, 1972 could be recommended by the Deputy Settlement Commissioner to the Chief Settlement Commissioner for declaring the same as Katchi Abadi.

5. After going through the material brought on the record of this petition, I find from para. No. 1 of the petition, para. No. 2 of Annex: `H', i.e. the report of Deputy Settlement Commissioner, copies of the record of rights pertaining to the year 1972-73 (Annex : 'C') and (Annex : `D') wherein, in column No. 7, the locality has been described as "Ghairmumkin plot kothi" and from the comments that the locality was, in fact, a building site, it was treated and put on auction as building sites and thereafter it was transferred through P. T. D. as such. The learned counsel for the petitioners has not been able to controvert this aspect of the case. Since the locality according to my assessment was a building site on the relevant date, the same could not be commended by the Deputy Settlement Commissioner for being declared as Katchi Abadi under the Scheme prepared under section 7 of the Ordinance for carrying out the purposes of the Ordinance. As for contentions I and 2, the assertions of the petitioner that they Were occupiers of the locality since 1947 and more than 50 houses had been constructed thereon since before 15th March. 1972 and that the report submitted by the Deputy Settlement Commissioner to respondent No. I that katchi abadi did not exist on 15th March, 1972 in the locality was false and collusive, having been refuted by the respondents in Annexure `H' in comments and reply, the matter requires deeper investigation which I am afraid, may not be done by this Court while sitting in its writ jurisdiction. Even otherwise, there is nothing on the record to substantiate that the report of the Deputy Settlement Commissioner was collusive one. Since for the reasons given above I am not inclined to interfere in the matter, I need not discuss contention No. (iii), i.e. whether the locality was an evacuee land or not for the purposes of the Ordinance.

6. For what has been stated above there being no force in the petition the same is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs.

9. X. A Petition dismissed.