Point of Law: Act, 1954 does not stipulate any permission of the Custodian General for disposal, by sale, of evacuee properties. Thus, no permission of the Custodian General was required to dispose of the disputed plots and the sale-deed is not invalid for being violative of Section 10(2)(o) of the Act, 1950.

JUDGMENT :

SALIL KUMAR RAI, J.

1. Heard the counsel for the parties and also perused the records of Writ (B) No. 5199 of 2012 (Shamim Khan vs. Deputy Director of Consolidation, Bareilly and Others). The original records produced by the State-respondents in pursuance to the order dated 5.3.2018 were also perused by the Court.

2. The petitioner challenges the order dated 7.2.2011 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Bareilly (hereinafter referred to as D.D.C.) the effect of which is to restore in C.H. Form 45, the name of Panna Lal Mishra, the predecessor in interest of respondent Nos. 6 to 10 as tenure holder of the plots in dispute between the petitioner and respondent Nos. 6 to 10. The name of Panna Lal Mishra was recorded in C.H. Form 45 on the basis of a sale-deed said to have been executed by the Managing Officer/Assistant Custodian (Evacuee Property) in his favour. The basic year records of the disputed plots displayed the name of one Mohd. Ali Khan, Pakistani under the administration of Custodian. According to respondents Mohd. Ali Khan was an evacuee as defined in the Administration of Evacuee Property Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as, Act 1950) and the plots were transferred in favour Panna Lal Mishra by the Managing Officer after the same were acquired under Section 12 of the Displace Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as, Act 1954). The contention of the petitioner is that the original tenure holder was not an evacuee as he had not migrated to Pakistan, that the plots in dispute were not evacuee property and the sale-deed pleaded by respondent Nos. 6 to 10 is a forged document.

3. It is the admitted case of the parties that Mohd. Ali Khan Khan, S/o Mohd. Khan was the original tenure holder of the plots before Independence. The agricultural plots of which the aforesaid Mohd. Ali Khan was the tenure holder were Plot Nos. 1076, 1082, 1083/1, 1083/3 and 1084 situated in Village-Karilay, Pargana, Tehsil and District-Bareilly. During the first consolidation operations in the village, fresh chaks were carved in lieu of the aforesaid plots and the said chaks were numbered as Plot Nos. 510, 525, 541, 548, 554 and 555 and were part of Khata No. 269. In C.H. Form 45 prepared during the first consolidation operations in the village Mohd. Ali Khan S/o Mohd. Khan resident of Pakistan under the Administration of Custodian was recorded against Plot Nos. 510, 525, 541, 548, 554 and 555. C.H. Form 45 has been annexed as Annexure No. 3 of the affidavit filed by the District Magistrate, Bareilly. A perusal of the annexure shows that the C.H. 45 was prepared in 1366 Fasli, i.e. 1959 A.D. C.H. Form 41 annexed with the affidavit of the District Magistrate, Bareilly as Annexure No. 4 also indicates that the document was prepared in 1366 Fasli. The aforesaid documents indicate that first consolidation operations were held in the village in 1366 Fasli. In the second consolidation operations in the village, fresh chaks were carved out in lieu of the aforesaid plots and the chaks were numbered as Plot Nos. 1050, 1111, 1119, 1121, 1122, 1123, 1129, 1130, 1135 and 1136 (hereinafter referred to as ‘disputed plots’) and are part of Khata No. 00035.

4. Plot Nos. 1076, 1082, 1083/1, 1083/3 and 1084 are recorded in Register No. 7676, which is the Basic Record/ Basic Register of Evacuee Properties in District-Bareilly. The Register is kept in the custody of Assistant Custodian, Evacuee Properties, Bareilly. It has been certified by the Assistant Custodian that all Evacuee Properties in Tehsil-Bareilly have been recorded in the said Register. The entries in the Register show that Plot Nos. 1076, 1082, 1083/1, 1083/3 and 1084 were allotted to Ranveer Lal Kapoor and Kulveer Lal Kapoor and there is a recital on the relevant page that in the list at Serial No. 80 and File No. 123, the plots were Declared by Ordinance. In the counter affidavit filed by respondent Nos. 6 to 10 an extract of Demand and Colle