JUDGMENT - R.G. DESHPANDE, J.:---Communication dated 17-1-1983 bearing No. SSC/EVP/Osmanabad 52.54 issued by the respondent No. 2 Settlement Commissioner for Compensation Pool Properties-cum-Custodian of Evacuee Property, MS Bombay, whereby the Collector has been directed to take necessary steps to hand over the vacant possession of the property in question from the petitioner and hand it over to the respondent No. 1, is the subject-matter of challenge in this petition.

2. Relevant facts to be considered for the purposes of the present petition, are narrated as under:---

The petitioner, an agriculturist, is the legal heir of original cultivator Bajirao, who was cultivating Survey Nos. 239 and 353 admeasuring 33 acres and 21 gunthas and 12 acres and 11 gunthas respectively, of village Yermala from Mohammed Matin and Mohammed Ahmedsaheb. Bajirao, according to the petitioner, was cultivating the land as a tenant much prior to the creation of Pakistan in the year 1947. Mohammed Matin, on partition, migrated to Pakistan and naturally the property held by Mohammed Matin, was declared as an evacuee property.

3. Though Mohammad Matin had left India and his property was declared as evacuee property, Bajirao, the father of the present petitioner, who was cultivating the land as the tenant, got certificate in his favour getting declared his tenancy under the Hyderabad Tenancy Act, 1950 which was subsequently followed by a declaration in his favour as an owner of the property in question as a statutory owner, in pursuance of the provisions of section 38-E of the Hyderabad Tenancy Act, 1950. It would be appropriate at this stage itself to mention that the declaration of ownership in favour of the petitioner was only for the land to the extent of 11 acres and 21 gunthas and 6 acres and 6 gunthas respectively, from field Survey Nos. 239 and 353, mentioned in the previous paragraph.

4. It is necessary to observe that there is no dispute so far as regards the declaration of the property in question as an evacuee property in pursuance of the provisions of the Administration of Evacuee Property Act, 1950 (for short "Act of 1950") and hence, in pursuance of the provisions of section 12 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954, (for short "Act of 1954") the said property came to be acquired as an evacuee property for rehabilitation of displaced persons. Needless to mention that this property virtually forms a part and parcel of the property brought into compensation pool for being distributed to the persons, in consonance with the aims and objects of the 1954 Act.

5. The respondent No. 1 Ramjibhai Laljibhai, now, represented by his legal representative-wife, happened to be an allottee of this land which was the evacuee property of Mohammed Matin and which undisputedly happened to be in possession of the petitioner.

6. Since a declaration was there in pursuance of the provisions of the evacuee property, necessary proceedings were initiated in respect of that property of the evacuee-Mohammed Matin. In this proceeding, the Deputy Custodian, Evacuee Property, observed specifically that the petitioner could not have claimed the tenancy rights on the property in question as the provisions of the Tenancy Act to be not made applicable to the property so declared as evacuee property. This is the decision which was given by the Deputy Custodian, Evacuee Property, by his order dated September 20, 1953. Having been dissatisfied with this order of the Deputy Custodian, Osmanabad, the present petitioner approached the Revisional Authority i.e. the Additional Custodian, Evacuee Property, Hyderabad Division, by filing Revision Application No. 14/EN of 1953. The Revisional Authority, i.e. the Additional Custodian, who dealt with the revision, by his order dated December 9, 1953, allowed the revision by setting aside the order passed by the Deputy Custodian in so far as the possession of the petitioner as protected tenant, was concerned

Click Here to Read the rest of this document