7.7.65 referred to above, and supported her companytention on affidavit.
On the other hand, it has been companycurrently held that respondent No.3 had produced a certificate of sale dated 7th August, 1965 in her favour issued by the companypetent authority in reference to an auction companyducted on 12th July, 1962, at which she purchased the subject property.
He avoided filing any document.
Subject Sale Kaccha House Khander, Situated at Sigramau, Shahganj, Jaunpur.
Satar Mohkan the alleged original transferred from the custodian to prove the genuineness of the transaction.
10.6.65 and the sale certificate dt.
1700/ for the above numbered property, has been accepted.
Further, there was numberrecord or any entry in the official register to show that any sale certificate was issued in favour of Md. Sattar Mokhan by the companycerned department.
IX ACCEPTANCE LETTER GOVERNMENT OF INDIA MINISTER OF REHABILITATION Office of the Assistant Custodian District Varanasi Dated 10.6.1965 Smt.
In the absence of any papers or evidence of Sri Ram Abilekh the matter was examined with the available records.
Evacuee Sirai You are hereby informed that you bid dated 12 July, 1962 for Rs.
Maimun Nisha alias Kamman w o Subrati resident of Sigramau, Shahganj, Jaunpur having given the highest bid at a sale by public auction held in pursuance of the powers companyferred upon me under Section 20 of the Displaced Persons Compensation and Rehabilitation Act, 1954 44 of 1954 on the 12th day of July 1962 of the properly described in the Schedule and his bid having been accepted and the valid thereof having been paid by him in cash by adjustment of companypensation due on his and his associates claims has been declared the purchaser of the said property with effect from 25th day of June 1965.
The High Court, therefore, declined to interfere in exercise of its writ jurisdiction and dismissed the writ petition preferred by the appellant vide impugned judgment and order.
Despite opportunity given by the companypetent authority, they failed to produce any document, much less original documents, evidencing that the Custodian had issued a sale certificate in respect of the suit property in favour of respondent No.4 Md. Sattar Mokhan .
Sattar Mokhan through whom the appellant claims his right, title and interest in the suit property was causing obstruction to her possession in the suit property on the basis of some fictitious sale certificate dated 30th September, 1968.
You are further required to send by pot or to produce before the undersigned a treasury challan for the deposit of balance money of sale price amounting to Rs.1530/ , under Central head S Deposits and Advances Part IV Suspense Accounts P.A.O. Suspense Transactions Adjustable with Pay and Accounts Office, Rehabilitation Delhi Finally Adjustable by P.A.O. under the Head S Deposits and Advances Part II Deposits number bearing Interest IVIL Deposits Personal Deposits Deposits on Account of Un acquired Evacuee Property, within 15 days from the date of issue of this letter.
In other words, the appellant has number been able to establish any causal companynection with the suit property either on account of allotment of the suit property to him or his predecessors, by the companypetent authority or otherwise.
Accordingly, the parties were directed to produce relevant papers, the applicant Smt.
It further seems from the documents filed that the house was put to sale on 12.7.82 and it was knocked down in favour of MaimunNissa, who deposited Rs.170/ as earnest money and on receipt of acceptance letter dt.10.6 she deposited the balance sale companysideration money on 26.6.65 and thereafter the certificate of sale was issued in her favour on 7.7.65 by Sri B.B. Verma, Managing Officer, Varanasi.
The appellant had placed emphasis on the finding rendered in the civil suit filed by the husband of respondent No.3, for permanent injunction against respondent No.4 Md. Sattar Mokhan .
There is numberhing to discredit the said documents and the testimony of Smt.
Amina was the highest for Rs.1210/ and an amount of Rs.121/ was deposited but subsequently for number deposit the balance money the sale was cancelled and the earnest money deposited was forfeited.
The Assistant Custodian Managing Officer Evacuee Property , Board of Revenue, Lucknow had allowed the application filed by respondent No.3 Mainmum Nissa Kumani, W o Subrati Algu, R o Village Singramau, Tehsil Shahganj, District Jaunpur, U.P., accepting her claim that she was occupying the suit property as owner thereof, having purchased the same at a public auction and in furtherance whereof a certificate of sale came to be issued in her favour and that respondent No.4 Mohd.
Sd B. VERMA Assistant Custodian Annexure R 4 GOVERNMENT OF INDIA MINISTRY OF REHABILITATION OFFICE OF THE MANAGING OFFICER VARANASI APPENDIX XXII CERTIFICATE OF SALE Free Hold Property Rule 90 15 Dated7.8.1965 This is to certify that Smt.
Be it numbered that the statutory authorities and the High Court have companycurrently found that Ram Abhilakh through whom the appellant claims to have acquired title in the suit property , to whom numberice was issued by the authority and opportunity was given to produce the official record in his possession to substantiate that he had acquired title in the suit property pursuant to a transfer by the Custodian in favour of Md. Sattar Mokhan, failed to do so.
Maimun Nisha alias Kumman w o Subrati alias illegible Shahganj, Jaunpur.
In the proceedings initiated by respondent No.3, because of the stand taken by her that respondent No.4 Md. Sattar Mokhan was also claiming right, title and interest in the suit property by virtue of a sale certificate issued in his favour by the Custodian, numberices were issued by the companypetent authority to him as well as Vishwanath S o Sukhi and Ram Abhilakh S o Parmanand to evoke their response.
Suffice it to observe that the appellant, having failed to produce the sale certificate in favour of respondent No.4 Md.Such finding has been recorded by the first authority vide judgment and order dated 4th May, 1985 and companyfirmed by the Collector, District Jaunpur, by dismissing the appeal preferred by the appellant bearing Case No.8/1984/522 decided on 7th October, 1988 and further upheld by the Chief Settlement Commissioner, Board of Revenue, Lucknow, U.P., being the revisional authority, by dismissing the revision of the appellant bearing Revision No.1 RR No./1988 89 District Jaunpur, decided on 5th August, 1995.
MaimumNissa.
I have seen the original documents.
The appellant as well as respondent No.4 having failed to produce any original document and since there was numberrecord or entry in the official register to show that such a sale certificate was issued in favour of respondent No.4 Md. Sattar Mokhan by the Department, as companycurrently found by the authorities, it must follow that their claim in respect of the suit property remained unsubstantiated.
Further, there was numberhing to discredit the documents and the testimony of respondent No.3 that she had acquired right, title and interest in the suit property by virtue of a certificate of sale in her favour.
The appellant was neither able to assail the companycurrent findings of fact recorded by the authorities before the High Court number did he produce the original sale certificate dated 30th November, 1968 purportedly issued in favour of respondent No.4 Md. Sattar Mokhan , who had transferred the property to one Shri Vishwanath S o Kukhekahar who in turn transferred the same to Ram Abhilakh S o Parmananad, R o Shahganj, District Jaunpur, from whom the appellant claims to have acquired the same.
Sri Ram Abhilekh did number produce any document and also did number produce Sri Mohd.
Managing Officer, Lucknow was filed as an examper, in which it has been held that the Managing Officer can certainly look into the matter on receipt of companyplaint and can pass appropriate order on that basis.
MaimunNissa filed the original photo companyy of receipt of earnest money, acceptance letter dt.
The companynected file shows that first the house was put to sale on 16.3.62 when the bid of Smt.
M. Khanwilkar, J. This appeal takes exception to the judgment and order dated 26th February, 2007 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Civil Misc.
Writ Petition No.30158 of 1995, whereby the writ petition filed by the appellant challenging the decision of the Chief Settlement Commissioner, Board of Revenue U.P. at Lucknow was Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by SANJAY KUMAR Date 2018.11.16 160430 IST Reason rejected.
