TYAGI, J.—This is a writ application by one Anwar Mohammad under Art, 226 of the Constitution of India.

2. Respondents Nos. 5 and 6 are not present before the Court. Shri Vishan Lal, Advocate for respondent No. 6 stated before us that his file was taken away by his client and therefore, he was not representing him now. No reply was filed either on behalf of the respondents Nos. 5 and 6 and, therefore, we have heard the writ application against them ex parte.

3. A joint reply has been filed on behalf of respondents Nos. 1 to 4.

4. It is common ground between the petitioner and the contesting respondents that a plot of land beating No. 367, situated in Mohalla Kagziyan, Sanganer, District Jaipur, was declared an evacuee property under the Administration of Evacuee Property Act, 1950, since it belonged to Ramjani son of Illabux of Sanganer, who had gone away to Pakistan. This property was acquired by the Government of India under the provisions of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954 (which will hereinafter be referred as the Act). On the application of the petitioner, the said property was leased out to him on 17th June, 1958 for a period of one year on a rent of Re. 1/- per month by order of respondent No. 1, namely, the Managing officer-cum-Assistant Custodian of Evacuee Property, Jaipur Zone, Jaipur. The petitioner deposited the lease money. At that time respondent No. 5 Kadarbux was in occupation of the said property as a tenant of a mortgagee of the evacuee. The application of mortgagee Shyamlal for confirmation of the mortgage was already rejected by the Assistant Custodian on 1st February, 1956. In spite of this respondent No. 5 was not willing to vacate the property and hand over the possession to the petitioner. Respondent No. 1, therefore, got respondent No. 5 forcibly evicted and the possession of the property was given to the petitioner. Thereafter respondent No. 1 gave a notice dated 23rd April, 1959 to the petitioner offering to sell the said property to him at the reserved price of Rs. 720/-on 24th April, 1959 by Treasury Challan No. 637 at Jaipur. Meanwhile, respondent No. 5 had filed a revision application since he felt aggrieved on account of his eviction from the said property. That revision application was heard by the Deputy Chief Settlement Officer and was dismissed by him on 12th June, 1959. A copy of that order is marked Ex. P. 9. While dismissing the revision application, however, he passed an order cancelling the sale of the property in favour of the petitioner. It was further directed by him that the property should be sold by public auction. "It is against this order that the present application is directed.

5. It is contended by the petitioner that the property was sold to him by respondent No. 1 in accordance with the directions which were issued by respondent No. 2, namely, the Regional Settlement Commissioner-cum-Custodiam of Evacuee property for Rajasthan, that the said directions were approved by the Chief Settlement Officer, that according to the said directions, respondent No. 1 was authorised to sell the property by negotiations, that the sale in favour of the petitioner was complete as soon as he deposited the price demanded from him, that respondent No. 3 had thereafter no power or jurisdiction left to cancel the sale in favour of the petitioner and direct its resale by public auction and, therefore, it is prayed that respondents Nos. 1 and 2 be prohibited from selling the aforesaid property by public auction and from interfering with the proprietary rights of the petitioner over the said property.

6. The petition is contested on behalf of respondents Nos. 1 to 4 on the ground that the directions given by respondent No. 2 were only administrative directions and that respondent No. 3 was not deprived of his power to cancel the sale in favour of the petitioner and direct its resale by public auction. It is further urged that no deed of conveyance was executed by respon

Click Here to Read the rest of this document