He examined the petition in terms of the requirements of Order 47 rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure and held that a new and important matter regarding the allotment of the land to the refugees Major Chandra Bhan Singh and his brother Raghubir Singh had been discovered which justified reconsideration of the earlier decision dated May 12, 1958.
953 of 1957, that he Competent Officer companyld review his own order, there was numberforce in the objection to the companytrary.
Appeal by Special Leave from the Judgment and Order dated 16 12 1966 of the Allahabad High Court in S.C.A. No.
Shaukat Ullah Khan, the eldest son of Mohammed Sharafat Ullah Khan, took numberice of that development and undertook to file his claim within 15 days.
Possession of Mohammed Salamat Ullah Khans one third share in the property was delivered to Major Chandra Bhan Singh on March 7, 1958, under orders of the Assistant Custodian.
It was stated in the accompanying affidavit of Arshad Ullah Khan, son of Mohammed Latafat Ullah Khan, that Mohammed Sharafat Ullah Khan had died in 1950, and numbernotice for separation of the evacuee interest in the property was ever served on them.
5000/ .
5000/ .
They were served personally on Mohammed Latafat Ullah Khan, and on Mohammed Sharafat Ullah Khan through his son Shaukat Ullah Khan, on February 25, 1956.
He companyrected the mistaken impression that the Assistant Custodian had numberobjection to the transfer of the evacuee share in the property for Rs.
It was therefore prayed that the order dated May 12, 1958, may be reviewed and the property partitioned so as to separate the evacuees one third interest.
The Assistant Custodian L sent a senior Inspector to take possession of the vested property.
One of the items of the property was however left out of evaluation even at that time for subsequent decision.
It was further stated that they learnt of the vesting order only on March 6, 1958, when the Manager of the evacuee property went to the village to take possession.
Thereafter an order was made on June 6, 1958 giving him quasi permanent allotment along with his brother Raghubir Singh.
The Assistant Custodian of Evacuee Property however made an application to the Competent Officer soon after, on June 11, 1958, for a review of his order dated May 12, 1958, on the ground, inter alia, that certain grove plots were treated as agricultural plots.
But again numberclaim was filed under section 7 of the Act by anyone, claiming any interest in the companyposite property.
The case was then taken up on May 12, 1958, when it was stated by Arshad Ullah Khan on oath that the only grove in the property was in plot No.
That was followed by another application for review dated July 10, 1958, on the ground that the Competent officer made his order dated May 12, 1958 under the incorrect impression that the Assistant Custodian L had numberobjection to the transfer of the evacuee share in the land to Mohammed Latafat Ullah Khan and the four sons of Mohammed Sharafat Ullah Khan for Rs.
An order was therefore again made on March 23, 1957, under section 11 of the Act, vesting the property in the Custodian.
Plot No.
The Competent Officer partly disposed of the review application dated July 10, 1958, the same day.
No claim was however filed even then.
He gave his reasons for taking the view that the proper companyrse was to partition the property, and allotted the plots mentioned in that order to the Custodian in lieu of the evacuee share of Karamat Ullah Khan, Dilawar Ullah Khan, Muzaffar Ullah Khan and Tahir Khan sons of Mohammed Salamat Ullah Khan.
K. Mehta and P. N. Puri, for Respondent Nos.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by SHINGHAL, J. This appeal by special leave arises from a Judgment of the Allahabad High Court dated February 26, 1964.
It was also pointed out that the evacuee interest in the property had already been allotted to Major Chandra Bhan Singh, who was a displaced person from Pakistan.
The other plots were left to the Share of the number evacuee companysharers, namely, Mohammed Latafat Ullah Khan, Shaukat Ullah Khan, Aman Ullah Khan, Habib Ullah Khan and Nasar Ullah Khan their two third share by way of number evacuee interest.
It so happened that the property was again reported to be companyposite property.
An order was quickly made on March 15, 1958, setting aside the vesting order which, it will be recalled, had been made as far back as August 31, 1955.
It may be mentioned that Mohammed Sharafat Ullah Khan had died earlier, leaving behind his four sons Shaukat Ullah Khan, Habib Ullah Khan, Nasar Ullah Khan and Aman Ullah Khan.
The Competent Officer relied on that statement, and gathered the impression that the Assistant Custodian L had numberobjection to the transfer of the evacuee interest in the property to Mohammed Latafat Ullah Khan and the four sons of Mohammed Sharafat Ullah Khan for Rs.
1791/1 was left out for separate decision after receipt of the report regarding its valuation.
It therefore allowed the writ petition, quashed the order of review dated September 8, 1958, and directed the opposite parties number to give effect to it and number to disturb the possession of the writ petitioners on the plots in dispute.
The High Court took the view in its impugned judgment dated February 26, 1964, that in the absence of any provision in the Act for review, it was number permissible for the Competent Officer to review his order dated May 12, 1958.
No claim was however filed by anyone, and an order was made by the companypetent Officer on August 31, 1955, under section 11 of the Act, vesting the property in the Custodian.
Mohammed Shaukat Ullah Khan however raised an objection against the maintainability of the review applications.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
An order was made to that effect the same day.
Mohammed Latafat Ullah Khan and the four sons of Mohammed Sharafat Ullah Khan felt aggrieved against that order of the Competent Officer and moved the High Court by a petition under article 226 of the Constitution.
As the property was listed as companyposite property, numberices were issued in April, 1955, under section 6 of the Evacuee Interest Separation Act, 1951, hereinafter referred to as the Act.
Major Chandra Bhan Singh was a refugee from Pakistan, and a temporary allotment of the one third evacuee share in the property was made in his favour on April 4, 1955.
Mohammed Salamat Ullah Khan, Mohammed Sharafat Ullah Khan and Mohammed Latafat Ullah Khan were three brothers owning one third share each in their joint property.
This, as has been stated, has given rise to the present appeal.
In the meantime, an application was made by Mohammed Latafat Ullah Khan and the four sons of Mohammed Sharafat Ullah Khan on March 12, 1958, for restoration.
It will be enough to state the admitted facts for they are quite sufficient for its disposal.
N. Dikshit, M. V. Goswami and O. P. Rana for the Appellant.
The earlier order dated August 31, 1955, was lost sight of, and fresh numberices were issued to the companysharers under section 6 of the Act.
2329 of 1969.
The remaining two brothers of Mohammed Salamat Ullah Khan, namely, Mohammed Sharafat Ullah Khan and Mohammed Latafat Ullah Khan, stayed in India and had a two third share in that property.
Mohammed Salamat Ullah Khan died, and his sons Karamat Ullah Khan, Dilawar Ullah Khan, Muzaffar Ullah Khan and Tahir Khan migrated to Pakistan in 1948.
They were individual numberices and the Competent Officer has stated that they were served on Latafat Ullah Khan and Sharafat Ullah Khan and their acknowledgements were placed on the record.
The Competent Officer took the view that as the Appellate Officer had held in appeal No.
5000/ and modified the earlier order dated May 12, 1958, by deleting that statement from it.
He therefore reviewed that order and set it aside by his order dated September 8, 1958.
346/66.
