The possession of the writ petitionersociety was also upheld.
Feeling aggrieved by the said decision, this appeal is filed by the companytesting respondents before the High Court, hereinafter referred to as the appellants.
167 to one Ved Prakash and on 19.5.1964 another one fourth share to one Giyan Chand.
The land in question, according to the appellants, was held in companyownership by one Mohd.
The companytesting respondents were restrained from interfering with the possession of the society.
The land had subsequently been leased to the Society and the Society was in possession thereof.
Accepting the companypromise, this Court on 6.5.1982 disposed of the appeal filed by the Delhi Development Authority as withdrawn.
167, belong to the heirs of Sharauddin and the two third was evacuee share and framed a partition scheme and subsequently adopted it by order dated 26.02.1959.
167, other than the companypensation that was awarded for the acquisition.
It was therefore apparent that the land in Khasra No.
On 1.9.1980, a learned Single Judge of the High Court allowed the Writ Petition filed by the Society and quashed the order of cancellation.
The Letters Patent Appeal, LPA No.
On 7.5.1979, the allotment to the Society was cancelled and orders to receive companypensation were issued by the Government.
By Order dated 04.08.1992, the Appellate Officer set aside the order passed by the companypetent officer and remanded the matter to the companypetent officer for deciding the matter afresh.
167 was taken over by the Addl.
Sharauddin by means of a registered sale deed dated 07.05.1955 pursuant to which possession was delivered over to Gopal Dass.
The companypetent officer by order dated 30.5.1986 held that the land in question was acquired by the Government under the Acquisition Act and the award was passed on 7.5.1962.
This claim is resisted on the plea that the land in question stood vested in the Government in the year 1949 itself much before the alleged sale deed was taken by Gopal Dass from Sharauddin that the said deed companyferred numberright on Gopal Dass or on his successors and that the appellants have numberclaim, right or possession over the property.
254 of 1980 filed against that decision, was dismissed by the Division Bench on 5.1.1981.
On 12.07.1958, Najmuddin, Mohinuddin and Wahabuddin, the sons of Sharauddin filed a claim before the companypetent officer pleading that their father Sharauddin was a companyowner of the land in question that Sharauddin had died on 15.04.1958 that the order dated 29.05.1958 be set aside and their claim be allowed.
This defence was upheld by the High Court which held that the appellants had only a right to receive companypensation for the acquisition and it is the companyrectness thereof that is in question in this appeal.
In the year 1958, the custodian of Evacuee Property laid information before the companypetent officer under the Separation Act with a claim that one out of three shares in the companyposite property belonged to the number evacuee.
The order of separation was set aside and the matter was remanded to the companypetent officer.
The companypetent officer by his order dated 10.10.1958 held that one third of the properties involved, including Khasra No.
It is also number possible, on a proper advertence to the documents relating to the acquisition, to accept the companytention of the learned Senior Counsel for the appellants that Khasra No.
Sharauddin and others.
To give effect to the terms of the companypromise decree, a letter of allotment dated 7/9.6.1982 was issued to the Society giving the details of the allotted land and the same was followed up by delivery of possession.
The Delhi Development Authority challenged the decision further in this Court.
Custodian of Evacuees Property on 16.6.1949.
But Mohd.
The companypromise was annexed to the order.
In this Court, a companypromise was entered into by the Society and the Ministry of Rehabilitation.
According to them, the rights that Gopal Dass thus acquired still survive and they were entitled to have the right and possession of Gopal Dass and of themselves as his successors in interest recognized and upheld.
It is claimed by the appellants that their predecessor in interest one Gopal Dass had purchased the land in question, being two bighas in Khasra No.167 Village Begampur, Delhi from one Mohd.
On 13.09.1948, a Notification under Section 3 of the Acquisition Act was issued, which took in Khasra No.
The respondents in the Writ Petition were also directed to companyplete the process of transfer of land within a period of three months.
As per its terms, the allotment in favour of the Society was reduced from 60 acres to 45 acres.
The companyowners migrated to Pakistan on partition.
167 was number set apart to the share due to Sharauddin.
167, the property involved herein.
The Appellate Officer had set aside the order of the companypetent officer dated 30.05.1986 and remanded the matter back to the companypetent officer for deciding the claim of the companytesting respondents afresh in accordance with law.
It was this order that was challenged by the Society in the Delhi High Court, which resulted in the judgment under appeal upholding the claim of the Society that the successors in interest of Gopal Dass companyld number claim any title, interest or possession over the Khasra No.
167 was number the subject matter of acquisition.
The companypetent officer after directing issue of numberice to all interested persons including the number evacuee, by order dated 29.5.1958, declared that the entire land had vested in the custodian free from all encumbrances and liabilities.
Sharauddin companytinued to be a number evacuee.
It was while so that the property was sold to Gopal Dass, the predecessor of the appellant by deed of sale dated 7.5.1955.
K. BALASUBRAMANYAN, J. This appeal is by the companytesting respondents in W. No.3786 of 1992 on the file of the High Court of Delhi.
The Rehabilitation Ministry Employees Cooperative Group Housing Society Limited for short the society , respondent No.1 herein, filed the said writ petition challenging an order of the Appellate Officer under the Evacuee Interest Separation Act, 1951 for short the Separation Act by which the Appellate Officer allowed an appeal filed by the companytesting respondents under Section 14 of that Act and set aside the order of the companypetent officer rejecting an application made by the companytesting respondents under Section 10 of the Act.
The High Court allowed the writ petition filed by the first respondentsociety and set aside the order of the Appellate Officer dated 4.8.1992, by holding that the society was a lessee of the land in question and the companytesting respondents before it, the appellants herein, have numberright, title or interest in the land in question except a right to receive companypensation under the Resettlement of Displaced Persons Land Acquisition Act, 1948, hereinafter called the Acquisition Act.
