The circumstances under which this question arises may number be briefly stated.
That application was rejected and revision application made against the order passed thereunder was also rejected on the ground that after July 22, 1952 the Additional Custodian was number companypetent to cancel an allotment made in favour of any person except upon the grounds set out in r. 14 6 of the Evacuee Property Rules.
They were, therefore, allotted certain lands in the village Karodian as quasi permanent allottees.
Respondents 4 to 9 were allotted urban lands, which according to the appellants are more valuable and are of a superior quality.
Curiously enough the Deputy Custodian General, who heard it, this time granted the application and set aside the allotment in favour of the appellants.
Subsequently some revenue papers were received from Pakistan from which it appeared that they were entitled to urban allotment.
The appellants and their father Nand Singh were displaced persons from West Pakistan and got allotment of some land in the village Raikot, District Ludhiana on a temporary basis.
Thereafter the Additional Custodian heard the application of the respondents 4 to 9 on merits and dismissed it.
They, therefore, brought this matter before the Deputy Commissioner exercising the powers of Deputy Custodian.
226 of the Constitution.
Appeal from the Judgment and order dated September 12, 1956, of the Punjab High Court in Letters Patent Appeal No.
Additional Custodian number only allowed the Application of Gopal Singh and shifted the allotment of Nand Singh to the village Karodian but he also shifted the entire allotment of the appellants Nos.
Six months later, however, respondents 4 to 9 preferred an application before the Additional Custodian stating therein that the land abandoned by them in West Pakistan was rural and that their allotment should be shifted back to the village Karodian.
133 1 c of the Constitution the question which arises for companysideration is whether after July 22, 1952 the Custodian of Evacuee Property in the State of Punjab of the Custodian General hearing an appeal from an order made by the Custodian after July 22, 1952 has the power to cancel an allotment of rural evacuee property on a quasi permanent basis except upon the grounds set out in r. 14 6 of the Administration of Evacuee Property Rules, 1950 as amended by numberification No.
Later, each of the appellants 1 to 3 was allotted 8 1/3 standard acres of land on a quasi permanent basis while Nail Singh, their father who was entitled to 41 standard acres and 7 units and to whom land to that extent had been temporarily allotted in the village Raikot was allotted the same acreage of land in the village Hambran which is situate at a distance of 25 or 30 miles from Raikot.
Respondents 4 to 9 owned lands in Chak No.
The appellants thereupon preferred an appeal under the Letters Patent which was also dismissed by a Division Bench of the High Court.
The substance of the reasoning of the learned Judges is that the allotment in favour of respondents 4 to 9 was wrongly cancelled and it was the duty of the Custodian to restore to them the lands from which they were ousted.
1 to 3 from the village Raikot to the village Karodian with the result that the lands allotted to the family were companysolidated in the same village.
The appellants as his legal representatives companytinued the application.
The appellants thereafter moved the High Court of Punjab under Art.
To this application they did number make the appellants parties.
In either case I am of the opinion that there is numbererror in the order of the Custodian General sufficient for the purpose of quashing his order .
Against his order dismissing the application respondents 4 to 9 preferred a revision application before the Custodian General.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
The appellants thereupon obtained possession of the Karodian lands.
May 4.
127, G. B. Jaranwala, District Lyallpur and are also displaced persons.
38 of 1955.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by MUDHOLKAR, J. In this appeal under Art.
They did number prefer an application for review of the order of cancellation of their earlier allotment or of the order passed by the Additional Custodian allotting their lands to the appellants.
4 to 9.
457/58.
Nanak Chand, for the respondents Nos.
Nand Singh made an application for revising the order under which this was done but he died in the year 1951, during the pendency of that application.
Thereupon he cancelled the allotment in their favour sometime in the year 1952 and proposed to the Additional Custodian, who was also acting as Director of Relief and Rehabilitation, for the allotment of the lands which were originally allotted to the respondents to others.
The matter went up before a single Judge of the High Court who dismissed the petition observing as follows If the order of cancellation against the present opposite parties was made after the 22nd July, 1952, the order was inoperative in view of Rule 14 6 and if it be said that the order of allotment was after the date then Rule 14 6 is number bar to the cancellation of the order.
1290 dated July 22, 1952.
C. Chatterjee and Naunit Lal, for the appellants.
2, Gopal Singh, on behalf of his father Nand Singh applied to the Director of Relief and Rehabilitation that the allotment in the name of his father Nand Singh might be shifted from the village Hambran to the village Karodian.
Appellant No.
