Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Online)(Raj) 10838

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 148/2001

Sukh Ram S/o Sh. Ganga Ram Solanki R/o New Laxmi Tara Cinema, Nagaur

----Petitioner

Versus

1. Union Of India through Secretary, Ministry of Rehabilitation, Jaisalmer House, Man Singh Road, New Delhi

2. The Chief Settlement Commissioner cum Divisional Commissioner, Bikaner

3. Settlement Commissioner-cum-District Collector, Nagaur.

4. Managing Officer-cum-Tehsildar, Nagaur.

5. State of Rajasthan through Collector, Nagaur.

6. Municipal Board, Nagaur through its Executive Officer.

7. Legal Representatives of Faizu Khan :-

7/A. Smt. Shayada Banu W/o Late Faizu Khan.

7/B. Layakat Khan S/o Late Faizu Khan

7/B/1. Mst Bano Widow of Late Layakat Khan

7/B/2. Razak Khan S/o Late Layakat Khan

7/B/3. Rukhsana Bano D/o Late Layakat Khan

7/B/4. Anwar Khan S/o Late Layakat Khan

7/B/5. Mubarik S/o Late Layakat Khan

7/B/6. Rihana D/o Late Layakat Khan

7/C. Sokhat Khan S/o Late Faizu Khan.

7/D. Mustak Khan S/o Late Faizu Khan.

All resident of village Berikhard Tehsil Didwana, Nagaur.

7/E. Mariam Banoo W/o Gulab Khan D/o Late Faizu Khan, R/o Jajod Tehsil Laxmangarh, Nagaur.

7/F. Roshal Banoo W/o Poolekhan D/o Late Faizu Khan, R/o Village Mavo Tehsil Didwana, Nagaur.

7/G. Sugara Banoo W/o Sokhat Khan D/o Late Faizu Khan, R/o Village Mavo Tehsil Didwana, Nagaur.

8. Mrs. Adisa D/o Late Kalu Khan.

9. Mrs. Hasan D/o Late Kalu Khan.

10. Mrs. Mehbooba D/o Late Kalu Khan.

11. Mrs. Hanifa W/o Umrao Khan D/o Late Kalu Khan.

12. Babu Khan S/o Umrao Khan S/o Late Kalu Khan.

Respondents No. 8 to 12 R/o Kalu Khan ki Badi. outside Delhi Gate, Nagaur.

13. Legal Representatives of Ibrahim Khan S/o Late Kalu Khan:-

13/1. Jariban Banoo W/o Late Ibrahim Khan, aged about years, R/o Kalu Khan Ki Badi, Outside Delhi Gate, Nagaur.

13/2. Madina Banoo W/o Nanu Khan D/o Late Ibrahim Khan, aged about 40 years, R/o Village Siyas, Tehsil Merta, Nagaur.

13/3. Ali Sher Khan S/o Late Late Ibrahim Khan, aged about 38 years, R/o Kalu Khan ki Badi, outside Delhi Gate, Nagaur.

13/4. Rubina Banoo W/o Hoshiyar Ali Khan D/o Late Ibrahim Khan, aged about 35 years, R/o Village Rathriyan Bas, Near Nai Masjid Ladnu, Nagaur.

13/5. Vaskar Banoo W/o Jahid Khan D/o Late Ibrahim Khan, aged about 33 years, R/o Mohalla Kuchaman City, Nagaur.

13/6. Nasrim Banoo W/o Guljar Khan D/o Late Ibrahim Khan, aged about 31 years, R/o Jalupura, Near Sikar Hotel, Jaipur.

13/7. Shamsher Khan S/o Late Ibrahim Khan, aged about 29 years, R/o Kalu Khan ki Badi, outside Delhi Gate, Nagaur.

13/8. Rafiq Khan S/o Late Ibrahim Khan, aged about 27 years, R/o Kalu Khan ki Badi, outside Delhi Gate, Nagaur.

13/9. Mahmood Khan S/o Late Ibrahim Khan, aged about 25 years, R/o Kalu Khan ki Badi, outside Delhi Gate, Nagaur.

13/10. Ashif Khan S/o Late Ibrahim Khan, aged about 17 years, through natural guardian Mother Jariban Banoo R/o Kalu Khan ki Badi, outside Delhi Gate, Nagaur.

14. Mohd. Kasim S/o Hazi Isa, R/o Kulsum Dairy Farm, Nagaur

15. Islammuddin S/o Mahmood, R/o Hamalo ka Mohalla, Nagaur.

16. Ramswaroop S/o Hukmi Chand Panwar, R/o Panwarron ka Baas, Chenar, Nagaur.

17. Mohd. Iqbal S/o Mohd. Munif, R/o Hamalo ka Mohalla, Nagaur,

18. Legal Representatives of Tulsi Ram S/o Shri Deepa Ram:-

18/1. Chanchal W/o Late Tulsi Ram aged 71 years.

18/2. Legal Representatives of Raja Ram S/o Late Tulsi Ram:-

18/2/1. Chanda W/o Late Raja Ram aged 45 years.

18/2/2. Praveen S/o Late Raja Ram aged 28 years.

18/2/3. Chetan S/o Late Raja Ram aged 24 years.

18/2/4. Jitendra S/o Late Raja Ram aged 21 years.

18/2/5. Seema D/o Late Raja Ram aged 19 years.

18/3. Ramkumar S/o Late Tulsi Ram aged 44 years.

18/4. Pukhraj S/o Late Tulsi Ram aged 38 years. All resident of Bassi Mohalla, Nagaur.

18/5. Smt. Chanda W/o Murli Marothiya D/o Late Tulsi Ram, R/o Teliyon ka Mohalla, Marwar Mundwa, Nagaur.

18/6. Smt. Leela W/o Bajrang Lal Gehlot D/o Late Tulsi Ram, R/o Begum Bazar, Hyderabad.

19. Legal representatives of Late Bhanwar Lal.

19/1. Smt Chauthi Devi W/o Late Shri Bhanwar Lal, aged 70 years, R/o Panwaron ka baas, Chenar, Distt. Nagaur.

19/2. Rajendra Singh Panwar S/o Late Shri Bhanwar Lal, aged 54 years, R/o Panwaron ka baas, Chenar, Distt. Nagaur.

19/3. Narendra Panwar S/o Late Shri Bhanwar Lal, aged 51 years, R/o Panwaron ka baas, Chenar, Distt. Nagaur.

-------Respondent

Connected With S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3854/2000

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MUNNURI LAXMAN

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners:
For the Respondents: Sachin Acharya

An appellate authority cannot initiate suo motu proceedings to act as an interested party and subsequently adjudicate the matter; such dual roles violate principles of natural justice. Furthermore, official administrative acts of disposing compensation pool property via allotment carry a presumption of validity unless specifically rebutted by evidence of fraud.

Headnote:(A) Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954 - Sections 6, 12, 17, 20 and 22 - Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Rules, 1955 - Rule 87 - Administration of Evacuee Property Act, 1950 - Sections 7, 8, 18 - Evacuee Interest (Separation) Act, 1951 - Sections 4, 5, 6, 11 - Grant of Sanad - Suo motu proceedings by appellate authority - Jurisdiction - Justification of property as evacuee property - Non-joinder of necessary parties. (Paras 3, 31, 32, 45, 54, 57, 59, 67, 72)

(B) Appellate Jurisdiction - Exercise of suo motu powers - The appellate authority under the Act cannot initiate suo motu proceedings to act as an aggrieved party and subsequently adjudicate the same, as this violates fundamental principles of natural justice. An authority acting as an aggrieved party cannot simultaneously assume the role of an adjudicator to decide its own grievance. (Paras 68, 69)

(C) Evacuee Property - Vesting - The publication of declaration is a procedural requirement under the Act and not a condition precedent for the vesting of property in the Custodian where the property has already vested under the provisions of a repealed Act. (Paras 40, 41)

(D) Property Disposal - Mode of sale - The disposal of compensation pool property by allotment upon payment of determined price falls within legally recognized modes of transfer under the Rules, specifically where broader policy decisions aim to regularize possession. (Paras 61, 65)

Facts of the case:
The litigation originated from the challenge to a Sanad (deed of grant) issued by an authorized officer in 1972 regarding lands acquired as part of the compensation pool. Multiple remand orders were passed over 53 years by various authorities regarding the status of the land as evacuee property and the legitimacy of the allotment process. The petitioners challenged the orders of revisional authorities that had set aside the grant of the Sanad and questioned the validity of the underlying proceedings.

Findings of Court:
Despite inconsistent governmental stands, the record confirmed the lands were duly vested evacuee properties acquired for the rehabilitation of displaced persons. The administrative decision to regularize the possession of occupiers by fixing and collecting market price was validly exercised under the overarching statutory framework. The revisional orders were found unsustainable due to jurisdictional defects, non-joinder of essential authorities, and the absence of evidence for alleged fraud.

Issues: Whether the subject lands were evacuee properties; whether the appellate authority could initiate suo motu proceedings and adjudicate them; and whether the procedure adopted for the grant of the Sanad was legally valid.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that once property is acquired as part of the compensation pool, it stands vested absolutely in the government. The initiation of suo motu proceedings by an appellate authority without a validly filed appeal against its own order or that of a subordinate is without jurisdiction. Furthermore, allegations of fraud must be specifically pleaded and proven, and cannot be founded on mere suspicion or the speed of disposal. The failure to implead necessary government authorities further vitiated the appellate and revisional proceedings.

Result: Both writ petitions allowed; impugned orders of the authorities are set aside and the original grant is confirmed.

Judgment

DATE OF CONCLUSION OF ARGUMENTS : 08/01/2026

DATE ON WHICH ORDER IS RESERVED : 08/01/2026

FULL ORDER OR OPERATIVE PART : FULL ORDER

DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 07/04/2026

1) The present writ petitions, being Petition Nos. 1548/2001 and 3854/2000, challenge the common order dated 03.10.2000 passed by the Divisional Commissioner, Bikaner in Revision Case Nos. 3/1999 and 4/1999, whereby Revision Case No. 3/1999 was dismissed and Revision Case No. 4/1999 was allowed. Consequently, the order dated 31.05.1999 passed by the District Magistrate-cum-Settlement Commissioner, Nagaur, and the order dated 15.06.1972 passed by the Managing Officer, Nagaur, were set aside.

2) The issue involved in both the writ petitions is one and the same. Accordingly, both the writ petitions are being decided by this common order. The Writ Petition No.148/2001 has been filed by Sukhram, the purchaser of a part of the subject property involved in the present litigation. He purchased the land from Tulsiram by way of a registered sale deed. Tulsiram, in turn, had purchased the said land from Kalu Khan on the strength of a Sanad issued by the Managing Officer under the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act of 1954”). The Writ Petition No.854/2000 has been filed by Ibrahim Khan, the son of Kalu Khan ( to whom the Sanad was granted under the Act of 1954) along with Tulsiram and Bhanwarlal, who are purchasers from Kalu Khan by registered sale deeds on the basis of the said Sanad. During the pendency of the writ petitions, it appears that all the original petitioners have passed away and their legal heirs were brought on record.

3) At the outset, it may be noted that the present litigation has a checkered history spanning over 53 years. Such prolonged duration is attributable to multiple remand orders passed by various appellate and revisional authorities. The present proceedings arise out of suo motu proceedings initiated by the District Magistrate-cum-Settlement Commissioner, Nagaur, against the grant of Sanad dated 15.06.1972 by the Managing Officer in respect of properties forming part of the compensation pool under the Act of 1954. The District Magistrate-cum-Settlement Commissioner is the appellate authority under Section 22 of the Act of 1954 against orders passed by the Settlement Officer or Managing Officer under the Act. The foundation for the suo motu action of the District Magistrate-cum-Settlement Commissioner was a notice dated 07.10.1972. The contents of the said notice indicate that the suo motu proceedings were initiated for cancellation of the Sanad granted by the Managing Officer on the grounds that the subject properties were not custodian lands and that the allottee was not in possession of the lands for which the Sanad had been granted. On these grounds, a notice dated 07.10.1972 was issued to show cause as to why the Sanad should not be cancelled. The said notice was issued only to Kalu Khan, to whom the Sanad had been granted. In response to the said notice, the applicant, Kalu Khan, sought an adjournment of the proceedings on the ground of his illness. However, the District Magistrate-cum-Settlement Commissioner, by order dated 18.10.1972, cancelled the Sanad by merely noting the request made by Kalu Khan regarding his illness, without examining the nature of the lands or whether the ground for adjournment was genuine.

4) The order dated 18.10.1972 passed by the District Collector-cum-Settlement Commissioner was assailed by Kalu Khan before the Revenue Appellate Authority, Jodhpur. The Revenue Appellate Authority, by its order dated 25.01.1974, allowed the appeal on the ground that the District Magistrate had acted in the capacity of a revenue officer, whereas the subject matter pertained to a Sanad granted under the Act of 1954. It was held that the District Magistrate had no jurisdiction to entertain proceedings relating to orders passed under

Click Here to Read the rest of this document