SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1984 Supreme(Raj) 49

DWARKA PRASAD, K.BHATNAGAR
Banshidhar – Appellant
Versus
Appellate Officer – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
B.L. Purohit, for Appellants; Rajesh Balia, for Respondent No. 2

DWARKA PRASAD, J.—The orders passed by the Competent Officer, appointed under Section 4 of the Evacuee Interest (Separation) Act, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as the Separation Act and the Appellate Officer, appointed under section 13 of the Separation Act, directing that the composite property in dispute should be offered to respondent No. 2 Mst. Kakoo at the assessed price, in case she was willing to purchase the same, were challenged by the appellants by means of a writ petition in this Court. The writ petition was, however, dismissed by a learned Single Judge of this Court by his order dated August 29, 1972 on the ground that the same was filed after a considerable delay and the appellants could not explain the aforesaid delay.

2. The circumstances in which this matter has come up before us may be briefly stated. Khasras No. 313, 363, 376 and 496, situated in village Nawan, Tehsil Hanumangarh in the District of Sri Ganganagar belonged to Noor Mohd. and his mother Mst. Kakoo, respondent No 2. It was alleged that both Noor Mohd. and Mst. Kakoo had migrated to Pakistan as a result of civil disturbances and had become evacuees. However, Mst. Kakoo claimed that she never become an e











Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top