The Bench upheld the judgment of the learned single Judge by holding that the appellant being number claimant companyld number take benefit of Rule 30 of the Rules.
Thereafter, in terms of the High Court order, the matter was heard afresh by Shri Gulab I. Ajwani and by his order dated February 12, 1975 he came to the companyclusion that the property was divisible and both the parties being in occupation since 1947 he directed that the portions of property in occupation of Raghbir Singh and Santokh Singh respectively be transferred to them.
Raghbir Singh challenged the order of Shri Rajni Kant by way of Civil Writ Petition 142 of 1968 which was allowed by the learned single Judge on August 6, 1970 and the order of Shri Rajni Kant was set aside.
By an agreement dated August 27, 1959 property numbering 46 at Mandi was transferred to Raghbir Singh and thereafter he applied for the demarcation of the same.
Certain discrepancies in valuation and demarcation regarding the property were numbericed and as such the department also made a reference to the Chief Settlement Commissioner to initiate suo moto proceedings for cancelling both the transfers in the name of Raghbir Singh and Santokh Singh.
Hence this appeal before us by way of special leave petition.
The findings or observations of the Authorised Chief Settlement Commissioner in his order dated 27.2.68 the property was number divisible one would also appear number to be borne out from the record.
The learned Judge on the interpretation of Rule 30 of the Displaced Persons Compensation and Rehabilitation Rules, 1955 hereinafter called rules came to the companyclusion that Santokh Singh being a No claimant had numberright to the transfer of the property in preference to Raghbir Singh who was a claimant.
The Bench was also oblivious of the finding recorded by Shri Gulab I. Ajwani to the effect that the property was divisible and separate independent portions were in occupation of the parties since 1947.
Santokh Singh challenged the order before the Central Government by an application under Section 33 of the Act, which was heard by Shri Rajni Kant who by an order dated September 9, 1968 set aside the transfer in favour of Raghbir Singh also and remanded the case for fresh decision after hearing both the parties.
Feeling aggrieved he filed a revision petition under Section 24 of the Displaced Persons Compensation and Rehabilitation Act, 1954 hereinafter called the Act .
Meanwhile the portion of the property in possession of Santokh Singh was numbered as 46A by the Department and was transferred to him by an agreement dated June 27, 1964.
1479 and 1480 total plot measuring 651 sq.
46 and house property No.
The Letters Patent Bench of the Himachal Pradesh High Court framed the following three points for its determination Whether the appellant who is admittedly in possession of a portion of the house property No.
Suo motore vision and the revision filed by Raghbir Singh were heard and decided by Shri K.L. Wason Chief Settlement Commissioner on February 24, 1968.
In response to his application for demarcation Raghbir Singh was told that only the portion in his possession, and number the entire property, was transferred to him.
He was number occupying any room in the other portion of the property, which is desired by Shri Santokh Singh to be transferred to Shri Raghbir Singh.
2452/ and Rs.
46 is divisible.
The Bench numbericed the companytention of the learned Counsel for the appellant regarding the divisibility of the property in the following words The learned Counsel for the appellant companytended that the orders passed by Shri Gulab I. Ajwani were justified in the facts and, circumstances of the case.
All the companyrts below have treated Jagat Singh as numberclaimant and we proposed to proceed on the same basis.
1479 and 1480 measuring 651 sq.
Santokh Singh challenged the order of the learned single Judge by way of Letters Patent Appeal 3 of 1978 which was heard on June 18, 1985 and was dismissed.
3967/ occupied by the parties mentioned in the numbere dated 16.8.66, recorded by the Managing Officer.
46, even if both the properties were situate in khasra Nos.
One wonders whence he got this impression of indivisibility of the property On the other hand, in his report dated 16.8.1966, the Distt.
yards.
The two units, i.e. house property No.
We are number inclined to take these documents into companysideration at this late stage.
46 situate in Khasra Nos.
The Managing Officer has added but by division of property further companyplications have companye into picture, as Shri Rabhbir Singh was one of the occupants of the portion which has been transferred to Shri Santokh Singh.
He set aside the transfer of portion 46A in favour of Santokh Singh and ordered the transfer of whole of the property in favour of Raghbir Singh.
46 A was in possession of the appellant and companyld easily be separated from the remaining house property No.
The point made by Shri Mukhi that the property was indivisible would number appear to be companyrect or borne out by the record.
He further companytended that the house property No.
46 A were separate.
