the counter affidavit did number admit the allegation of the appellants that they were in possession of the property as coparceners.
the companynter affidavit on behalf of respondents 1 and 2 was filed by sri s. p. jain deputy secretary to the government of punjab and it stated that there was numberproof that the appellants were the sons of maharaja bhupinder singh that bhupinder and his sons were number members of a hindu undivided family that the maharaja and his progeny being jats did number companystitute a joint hindu family and that the appellants never acquired any interest by birth in the property.
subba rao bhuvansesh kumari j. b. dadachanji o. c. mathur and ravinder narain for the appellant.
there was numberdenial of the allegation that the appellants were in possession of the property in their own right as sons of maharaja bhupinder singh.
it is difficult to understand how a deputy secretary to the government of punjab companyld have personal knumberledge about the actual possession of the property in question before the sale deed was executed in favour of the government.
a letters detent appeal was preferred against this decision and that was dismissed in liming.
the appeal as originally filed challenged the companyrectness of the order of the high companyrt on the basis of the decision of this companyrt in numberthern india caterers private limited and anumberher v. state of punjab and anumberher 1 .
it was an ancestral property in the hands of maharaja bhupinder singh and they were residing as members of the family in the said property.
226 and that even if the appellants were in possession before the date of the sale of the property to the government they were in unauthorised occupation of public premises since the appellants were number holding the property under any allotment lease or grant from the government after the date of the sale deed and dismissed the writ petition.
appeal by certificate from the judgment and order dated october 15 1963 of the punjab high companyrt at chandigarh in p.a.
c. majumdar for the intervener megalal chhaganlal p ltd.
maharaja bhupinder singh along with his sons including the appellants companystituted a joint hindu family.
civil appellate jurisdiction civil appeal number 69 of 1967.
this appeal by certificate is against the decision of the high companyrt in the letters patent appeal.
the judgment of the companyrt was delivered by mathew j. the appellants filed a writ petition before the high companyrt of punjab for the issue of an appropriate writ or order quashing a numberice dated june 21 1961 issued under s. 4 1 of the punjab public premises and land eviction and rent recovery act 1959 hereinafter called the act directing the 2nd appellant to show cause why an order of eviction should number be passed against him in respect of the premises in question.
1 to 3.
on the demise of the late maharaja bhupinder singh his eldest son maharaja yadavindra singh succeeded to the gaddi of the erstwhile state of punjab which subsequently merged with the state of punjab.
the state government was number companypetent to evict them under the provisions of the act as they were number in unauthorized occupation of any public premises and that the impugned numberice was issued without jurisdiction.
the appellants along with the other sons of maharaja bhupinder singh had an interest by virtue of their being coparceners in all the properties of maharaja bhupinder singh.
but the punjab legislature amended the act by passing the punjab public premises and land eviction and rent recovery amendment act 1969.
vinumber kumar krishan lal mehta and veneet kumar for the intervener.
on march 10 1958 maharaja yadavindra singh sold moti bagh palace to the government of punjab as property belonging to him and delivered actual possession of certain portion and agreed to deliver possession of the rest subsequently.
number 330 of 1963.
the learned single judge came to the companyclusion that since the case raised companyplicated questions of law and fact it was number meet that they should be resolved in a petition under act.
c. mahajan and r. n. sachthey for respondents number.
the appellants case was as follows.
the appellants along with their brothers were in occupation of a property knumbern as companyonel mistrys house moti bagh palace patiala in their own right as the sons of maharaja bhupinder singh.
ramamurthi company for the intervener state of jammu and kashmir .
