JUDGMENT

Sanjeev Prakash Sharma, J. - The petitioners by way of this writ petition pray for directing the respondents not to interfere with the possession of the petitioners on the house No.18/28 situated in village Ranawas District Pali and in the alternative to hand over the possession of the property of which physical possession has been taken by the respondents; and further to accept sale price of the house as determined by the managing officer. Further prayer has been made to dispose of the appeal preferred by the predecessor of the petitioner No.1 expeditiously and till then petitioners be allowed to use and occupy the property in question.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the interim order was passed initially while admitting the writ petition vide order dated 23.09.1993. However, from the perusal of the file, record and order-sheet, it is noticed that on 10.04.1995, the adinterim order dated 23.09.1993 was vacated by the Court. On 01.04.2010, again prayer was made by learned counsel that there is an interim order passed on 23.09.1993 and the Court directed the Registry to trace the file of the stay application. Learned counsel has not been able to show as to whether the order of vacating the stay on 10.04.1995 was ever recalled or modified.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners has argued the matter at length on merits and submits that the petitioner Mohd. Ibrahim had become owner of the property in view of the gift deed executed in his favour by Noor Jahan who was wife of Subhanji and Subhanji was having tittle of the property in question.

4. Learned counsel further submits that the claim proceedings relating to property of Akbar by the custodians were challenged by Noor Jahan by filing claim proceedings 81/JU/61 for the composite property of house No.18/28 Ranawas District Pali. It is his submission that the State Competent Officer passed an order on 17.11.1962 but did not decide the same for want of jurisdiction. It is his further submission that an appeal was preferred against the said order before the Managing Officer, Ajmer but the same stood undecided and the facts regarding the said appeal are not known to the petitioners. The petitioners further submitted that no notice was issued in terms of Section 6 of the Evacuee Interest (Separation) Act, 1951 (hereinafter referred as "Act of 1951") to the petitioners and therefore the proceedings undertaken for vacating the property was unjustified and illegal.

5. It is further submitted that the petitioners are also ready to deposit any amount due for the evacuee property and further submit that since the appeal has not been decided, till the same is decided by the concerned appellate authority, the petitioners would be entitled to continue to be in possession and the respondents need not interfere with their possession. Further, it is submitted that if the sale price of the house is determined, the petitioners may be allowed to deposit the same and the property be peacefully handed over and possession cannot be dinied.

6. Learned counsel appearing for the State has submitted that the petitioners have come up with vague averments and vague submissions. There is no document to show that there was an appeal preferred against the order dated 17.11.1962 passed by the Court of State Competent Officer. From the perusal of the order dated 17.11.1962, it is apparent that notices were issued under Section 6 of the Act of 1951 where after the claimant preferred the claim proceedings. The order dated 17.11.1962 specifically mentioned that claim form has been filed by Noor Jahan widow of Subhanji for half share of house No.18/28 and notices were duly issued but the general notice has yet not been published. A finding has been arrived at that the claimant's claim is not tenable as the claimant's husband was only a tenant in the house of Akbar and the property is an acquired property. Thus, Mohd. Noor Jahan could not have gifted the property to the petitioner as she had