Ibrahim Khan And Ors vs Chief Steel.Commis.Bikaner And Ors on 7 April, 2026

April 9, 2026

Rajasthan High Court – Jodhpur

Ibrahim Khan And Ors vs Chief Steel.Commis.Bikaner And Ors on 7 April, 2026

[2026:RJ-JD:14231]



      HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
                       JODHPUR
                  S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 148/2001

Sukh Ram S/o Sh. Ganga Ram Solanki R/o New Laxmi Tara
Cinema, Nagaur
                                                                                   ----Petitioner
                                              Versus


1.  Union Of India through Secretary, Ministry of Rehabilitation,
    Jaisalmer House, Man Singh Road, New Delhi
2. The Chief Settlement Commissioner cum Divisional
    Commissioner, Bikaner
3. Settlement Commissioner-cum-District Collector, Nagaur.
4. Managing Officer-cum-Tehsildar, Nagaur.
5. State of Rajasthan through Collector, Nagaur.
6. Municipal Board, Nagaur through its Executive Officer.
7. Legal Representatives of Faizu Khan :-
     7/A. Smt. Shayada Banu W/o Late Faizu Khan.
     7/B. Layakat Khan S/o Late Faizu Khan
            7/B/1. Mst Bano Widow of Late Layakat Khan
            7/B/2. Razak Khan S/o Late Layakat Khan
            7/B/3. Rukhsana Bano D/o Late Layakat Khan
            7/B/4. Anwar Khan S/o Late Layakat Khan
            7/B/5. Mubarik S/o Late Layakat Khan
            7/B/6. Rihana D/o Late Layakat Khan
     7/C. Sokhat Khan S/o Late Faizu Khan.
     7/D. Mustak Khan S/o Late Faizu Khan.
            All resident of village Berikhard Tehsil Didwana,
            Nagaur.
     7/E. Mariam Banoo W/o Gulab Khan D/o Late Faizu Khan,
            R/o Jajod Tehsil Laxmangarh, Nagaur.
     7/F.   Roshal Banoo W/o Poolekhan D/o Late Faizu Khan,
            R/o Village Mavo Tehsil Didwana, Nagaur.
     7/G. Sugara Banoo W/o Sokhat Khan D/o Late Faizu
            Khan, R/o Village Mavo Tehsil Didwana, Nagaur.
8. Mrs. Adisa D/o Late Kalu Khan.
9. Mrs. Hasan D/o Late Kalu Khan.
10. Mrs. Mehbooba D/o Late Kalu Khan.
11. Mrs. Hanifa W/o Umrao Khan D/o Late Kalu Khan.
12. Babu Khan S/o Umrao Khan S/o Late Kalu Khan.
     Respondents No. 8 to 12 R/o Kalu Khan ki Badi. outside
     Delhi Gate, Nagaur.
13. Legal Representatives of Ibrahim Khan S/o Late Kalu Khan:-
       13/1. Jariban Banoo W/o Late Ibrahim Khan, aged about


      (D.B. SAW/183/2014 has been filed in this matter. Please refer the same for further orders)
                            (Uploaded onon08/04/2026
                           (Downloaded       08/04/2026atat10:30:30
                                                            08:51:30AM)
                                                                      PM)
 [2026:RJ-JD:14231]                            (2 of 58)                                [CW-148/2001]


             years, R/o Kalu Khan Ki Badi, outside Delhi Gate,
             Nagaur.
       13/2. Madina Banoo W/o Nanu Khan D/o Late Ibrahim
              Khan, aged about 40 years, R/o Village Siyas,
              Tehsil Merta, Nagaur.
        13/3. Ali Sher Khan S/o Late Late Ibrahim Khan, aged
              about 38 years, R/o Kalu Khan ki Badi, outside
              Delhi Gate, Nagaur.
        13/4. Rubina Banoo W/o Hoshiyar Ali Khan D/o Late
              Ibrahim Khan, aged about 35 years, R/o Village
              Rathriyan Bas, Near Nai Masjid Ladnu, Nagaur.
        13/5. Vaskar Banoo W/o Jahid Khan D/o Late Ibrahim
              Khan, aged about 33 years, R/o Mohalla Kuchaman
              City, Nagaur.
        13/6. Nasrim Banoo W/o Guljar Khan D/o Late Ibrahim
              Khan, aged about 31 years, R/o Jalupura, Near
              Sikar Hotel, Jaipur.
        13/7. Shamsher Khan S/o Late Ibrahim Khan, aged
              about 29 years, R/o Kalu Khan ki Badi, outside
              Delhi Gate, Nagaur.
        13/8. Rafiq Khan S/o Late Ibrahim Khan, aged about 27
              years, R/o Kalu Khan ki Badi, outside Delhi Gate,
              Nagaur.
        13/9. Mahmood Khan S/o Late Ibrahim Khan, aged about
              25 years, R/o Kalu Khan ki Badi, outside Delhi
              Gate, Nagaur.
       13/10. Ashif Khan S/o Late Ibrahim Khan, aged about 17
              years, through natural guardian Mother Jariban
              Banoo R/o Kalu Khan ki Badi, outside Delhi Gate,
              Nagaur.
14. Mohd. Kasim S/o Hazi Isa, R/o Kulsum Dairy Farm, Nagaur
15. Islammuddin S/o Mahmood, R/o Hamalo ka Mohalla, Nagaur.
16. Ramswaroop S/o Hukmi Chand Panwar, R/o Panwarron ka
    Baas, Chenar, Nagaur.
17. Mohd. Iqbal S/o Mohd. Munif, R/o Hamalo ka Mohalla,
     Nagaur,
18. Legal Representatives of Tulsi Ram S/o Shri Deepa Ram:-
        18/1. Chanchal W/o Late Tulsi Ram aged 71 years.
        18/2. Legal Representatives of Raja Ram S/o Late Tulsi
               Ram:-
              18/2/1. Chanda W/o Late Raja Ram aged 45 years.
              18/2/2. Praveen S/o Late Raja Ram aged 28 years.
              18/2/3. Chetan S/o Late Raja Ram aged 24 years.
              18/2/4. Jitendra S/o Late Raja Ram aged 21 years.
              18/2/5. Seema D/o Late Raja Ram aged 19 years.
         18/3. Ramkumar S/o Late Tulsi Ram aged 44 years.
         18/4. Pukhraj S/o Late Tulsi Ram aged 38 years. All
               resident of Bassi Mohalla, Nagaur.


      (D.B. SAW/183/2014 has been filed in this matter. Please refer the same for further orders)
                            (Uploaded onon08/04/2026
                           (Downloaded       08/04/2026atat10:30:30
                                                            08:51:30AM)
                                                                      PM)
 [2026:RJ-JD:14231]                            (3 of 58)                                [CW-148/2001]


        18/5. Smt. Chanda W/o Murli Marothiya D/o Late Tulsi
              Ram, R/o Teliyon ka Mohalla, Marwar Mundwa,
              Nagaur.
        18/6. Smt. Leela W/o Bajrang Lal Gehlot D/o Late Tulsi
              Ram, R/o Begum Bazar, Hyderabad.
19. Legal representatives of Late Bhanwar Lal.
        19/1. Smt Chauthi Devi W/o Late Shri Bhanwar Lal,
               aged 70 years, R/o Panwaron ka baas, Chenar,
               Distt. Nagaur.
        19/2. Rajendra Singh Panwar S/o Late Shri Bhanwar
               Lal, aged 54 years, R/o Panwaron ka baas,
               Chenar, Distt. Nagaur.
        19/3. Narendra Panwar S/o Late Shri Bhanwar Lal, aged
               51 years, R/o Panwaron ka baas, Chenar, Distt.
               Nagaur.
                                               -------Respondent


                                     Connected With
                 S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3854/2000

 1.     Legal Representatives of Ibrahim Khan S/o Late Kalu
        Khan:-.
        1/1. Jariban Banoo W/o Late Ibrahim Khan, aged about
              years, R/o Kalu Khan Ki Badi, Outside Delhi Gate,
              Nagaur.
         1/2. Madina Banoo W/o Nanu Khan D/o Late Ibrahim
               Khan, aged about 40 years, R/o Village Siyas, Tehsil
               Merta, Nagaur.
         1/3. Ali Sher Khan S/o Late Late Ibrahim Khan, aged
               about 38 years, R/o Kalu Khan Ki Badi, Outside
               Delhi Gate, Nagaur.
         1/4. Rubina Banoo W/o Hoshiyar Ali Khan D/o Late
               Ibrahim Khan, aged about 35 years R/o Village
               Rathriyan Bas, Near Nai Masjid Ladnu, Nagaur.
         1/5. Vaskar Banoo W/o Jahid Khan D/o Late Ibrahim
               Khan, aged about 33 years, R/o Mohalla Kuchaman
               City, Nagaur.
         1/6. Nasrim Banoo W/o Guljar Khan D/o Late Ibrahim
               Khan, aged about 31 years, R/o Jalupura, Near
               Sikar     Hotel, Jaipur.
         1/7. Shamsher Khan S/o Late Ibrahim Khan, aged about
               29 years, R/o Kalu Khan Ki Badi, Outside Delhi
               Gate, Nagaur.
         1/8. Rafiq Khan S/o Late Ibrahim Khan, aged about 27
               years, R/o Kalu Khan Ki Badi, Outside Delhi Gate,
               Nagaur.
          1/9. Mahmood Khan S/o Late Ibrahim Khan, aged about
               25 years, R/o Kalu Khan Ki Badi, Outside Delhi


      (D.B. SAW/183/2014 has been filed in this matter. Please refer the same for further orders)
                            (Uploaded onon08/04/2026
                           (Downloaded       08/04/2026atat10:30:30
                                                            08:51:30AM)
                                                                      PM)
 [2026:RJ-JD:14231]                             (4 of 58)                                [CW-148/2001]



                Gate, Nagaur.
          1/10. Ashif Khan S/o Late Ibrahim Khan, aged about 17
                years, through natural guardian mother Jariban
                Banoo, R/o Kalu Khan Ki Badi, Outside Delhi Gate,
                Nagaur.
  2.      Legal Representatives of Tulsi Ram S/o Shri Deepa Ram:-
         2/1. Chanchal W/o Late Tulsi Ram, aged 71 years.
         2/2. Legal Representatives of Raja Ram S/o Late Tulsi
                     Ram:-
               2/2/1 Chanda W/o Late Raja Ram, aged 45 years.
               2/2/2. Praveen S/o Late Raja Ram, aged 28 years.
               2/2/3. Chetan S/o Late Raja Ram, aged 24 years.
               2/2/4. Jitendra S/o Late Raja Ram, aged 21 years.
               2/2/5. Seema D/o Late Raja Ram, aged 19 years.
         2/3. Ramkumar S/o Late Tulsi Ram aged 44 years.
         2/4. Pukhraj S/o Late Tulsi Ram, aged 38 years.
               All R/o Bassi Mohalla, Nagaur.
          2/5. Smt. Chanda W/o Murli Marothiya D/o Late Tulsi
               Ram,        R/o Teliyon Ka Mohalla, Marwar Mundwa,
               Nagaur.
          2/6. Smt. Leela W/o Bajrang Lal Gehlot D/o Late Tulsi
               Ram,        R/o Begum Bazar, Hyderabad.
 3.      Legal Representatives of Late Bhanwar Lal.
          3/1. Smt. Chauthi Devi W/o Late Shri Bhanwar Lal, aged
                70 years, R/o Panwaron Ka bass, Chenar, District
                Nagaur.
          3/2. Rajendra Singh Panwar S/o Late Shri Bhanwar Lal,
                aged 54 years, R/o Panwaron Ka Bass, Chenar,
                District Nagaur.
          3/3. Narendra Panwar S/o Late Shri Bhanwar Lal, aged
                51 years, R/o Panwaron Ka Bass, Chenar, District
                Nagaur.

                                                                                 ----Petitioners

                                               Versus

 1.  Union      of  India   through  Secretary,    Ministry of
 Rehabilitation, Jaisalmer House, Man Singh Road, New Delhi.
 2.  Settlement Commissioner-cum-District Collector, Nagaur.
 3.  Managing Officer-cum-Tehsildar, Nagaur.
 4.  State of Rajasthan through Collector, Nagaur.
 5.  Municipal Board, Nagaur through its Executive Officer.
 6.  Legal Represetnatives of Faizu Khan:-
     6/A. Smt. Shayada Banu W/o Late Faizu Khan.
     6/B. Shokat Ali S/o Late Faizu Khan.
     6/C. Layakat Khan S/o Late Faizu Khan.
     6/D. Mustak Khan S/o Late Faizu Khan.


       (D.B. SAW/183/2014 has been filed in this matter. Please refer the same for further orders)
                             (Uploaded onon08/04/2026
                            (Downloaded       08/04/2026atat10:30:30
                                                             08:51:30AM)
                                                                       PM)
 [2026:RJ-JD:14231]                            (5 of 58)                                [CW-148/2001]



            All resident of Village Berikhard Tehsil Didwana,
                  Nagaur.
       6/E. Mariam Banoo W/o Gulab Khan D/o Late Faizu
             Khan, R/o Jajod Tehsil Laxmangarh, Nagaur.
       6/F. Roshal Banoo W/o Poolekhan D/o Late Faizu Khan,
             R/o Village Mavo, Tehsil Didwana, Nagaur.
       6/G. Sugara Banoo W/o Sokhat Khan D/o Late Faizu
             Khan, R/o Village Mavo, Tehsil Didwana, Nagaur.
 7.   Mrs. Adisa D/o Late Kalu Khan.
 8.   Mrs. Hasan D/o Late Kalu Khan.
 9.   Mrs. Mahabooba D/o Late Kalu Khan.
 10. Mrs. Hanifa W/o Umrao Khan D/o Late Kalu Khan.
 11. Babu Khan S/o Umrao Khan S/o Late Kalu Khan.
      Respondents No.6 to 11 R/o Kalu Khan Ki Badi, Outside
      Delhi Gate, Nagaur.
  12. Sukh Ram S/o Ganga Ram Solanki, R/o Kulsum Dairy
       Farm, Nagaur.
 13. Islammuddin S/o Mahmood, R/o Hamalo Ka Mohalla,
      Nagaur.
 14. Mohd. Iqbal S/o Mohd. Munif, R/o Hamalo Ka Mohalla,
      Nagaur.
 15. Ramswaroop S/o Hukmi Chand Panwar, R/o Panwarron Ka
      Baas, Chenar, Nagaur.


                                                                              ----Respondent


 For Petitioner(s)                   :     Mr. Ramit Mehta, Adv. with
                                           Mr. Tarun Dudia, Adv.
                                           Mr. Aman Khan, Adv.
 For Respondent(s)                   :     Mr. Narendra Singh Rajpurohit, AAG
                                           Dr. Sachin Acharya, Sr. Adv. with
                                           Mr. Chayan Bothra, Adv.
                                           Mr. Sarthak Asopa, Adv.
                                           (For Municipal Board,Nagaur)
                                           Mr. Bhanu Pratap Bohra, Adv. with
                                           Mr. Vaibhav Bhansali, Adv.


              HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MUNNURI LAXMAN

Judgment

DATE OF CONCLUSION OF ARGUMENTS : 08/01/2026
DATE ON WHICH ORDER IS RESERVED : 08/01/2026
FULL ORDER OR OPERATIVE PART : FULL ORDER
DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 07/04/2026

SPONSORED

(D.B. SAW/183/2014 has been filed in this matter. Please refer the same for further orders)
(Uploaded onon08/04/2026
(Downloaded 08/04/2026atat10:30:30
08:51:30AM)
PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:14231] (6 of 58) [CW-148/2001]

1) The present writ petitions, being Petition Nos. 1548/2001

and 3854/2000, challenge the common order dated 03.10.2000

passed by the Divisional Commissioner, Bikaner in Revision Case

Nos. 3/1999 and 4/1999, whereby Revision Case No. 3/1999 was

dismissed and Revision Case No. 4/1999 was allowed.

Consequently, the order dated 31.05.1999 passed by the District

Magistrate-cum-Settlement Commissioner, Nagaur, and the order

dated 15.06.1972 passed by the Managing Officer, Nagaur, were

set aside.

2) The issue involved in both the writ petitions is one and the

same. Accordingly, both the writ petitions are being decided by

this common order. The Writ Petition No.148/2001 has been filed

by Sukhram, the purchaser of a part of the subject property

involved in the present litigation. He purchased the land from

Tulsiram by way of a registered sale deed. Tulsiram, in turn, had

purchased the said land from Kalu Khan on the strength of a

Sanad issued by the Managing Officer under the Displaced Persons

(Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred

to as “the Act of 1954”). The Writ Petition No.854/2000 has been

filed by Ibrahim Khan, the son of Kalu Khan ( to whom the Sanad

was granted under the Act of 1954) along with Tulsiram and

Bhanwarlal, who are purchasers from Kalu Khan by registered sale

deeds on the basis of the said Sanad. During the pendency of the

writ petitions, it appears that all the original petitioners have

passed away and their legal heirs were brought on record.

3) At the outset, it may be noted that the present litigation

has a checkered history spanning over 53 years. Such prolonged

duration is attributable to multiple remand orders passed by

various appellate and revisional authorities. The present

proceedings arise out of suo motu proceedings initiated by the

District Magistrate-cum-Settlement Commissioner, Nagaur, against

the grant of Sanad dated 15.06.1972 by the Managing Officer in

respect of properties forming part of the compensation pool under

the Act of 1954. The District Magistrate-cum-Settlement

Commissioner is the appellate authority under Section 22 of the

Act of 1954 against orders passed by the Settlement Officer or

Managing Officer under the Act. The foundation for the suo motu

action of the District Magistrate-cum-Settlement Commissioner

was a notice dated 07.10.1972. The contents of the said notice

indicate that the suo motu proceedings were initiated for

cancellation of the Sanad granted by the Managing Officer on the

grounds that the subject properties were not custodian lands and

that the allottee was not in possession of the lands for which the

Sanad had been granted. On these grounds, a notice dated

07.10.1972 was issued to show cause as to why the Sanad should

not be cancelled. The said notice was issued only to Kalu Khan, to

whom the Sanad had been granted. In response to the said

notice, the applicant, Kalu Khan, sought an adjournment of the

proceedings on the ground of his illness. However, the District

Magistrate-cum-Settlement Commissioner, by order dated

18.10.1972, cancelled the Sanad by merely noting the request

made by Kalu Khan regarding his illness, without examining the

nature of the lands or whether the ground for adjournment was

genuine.

4) The order dated 18.10.1972 passed by the District

Collector-cum-Settlement Commissioner was assailed by Kalu

Khan before the Revenue Appellate Authority, Jodhpur. The

Revenue Appellate Authority, by its order dated 25.01.1974,

allowed the appeal on the ground that the District Magistrate had

acted in the capacity of a revenue officer, whereas the subject

matter pertained to a Sanad granted under the Act of 1954. It was

held that the District Magistrate had no jurisdiction to entertain

proceedings relating to orders passed under the Act of 1954. The

State, represented by the District Collector, challenged the said

order before the Board of Revenue. The Board of Revenue, by its

order dated 25.01.1974, allowed the appeal, holding that the

District Magistrate had acted not in his capacity as a revenue

officer but as a Settlement Commissioner, who is the competent

authority under the Act of 1954 to examine orders passed by the

Managing Officer. It was further held that the proceedings before

the Revenue Appellate Authority were without jurisdiction, and

consequently, the said order was set aside. Liberty was, however,

granted to approach the Chief Settlement Commissioner,

Rajasthan, Jaipur. Thereafter, Kalu Khan filed a revision petition

before the Chief Settlement Commissioner under Section 24 of the

Act of 1954, assailing the order of the District Collector-cum-

Settlement Commissioner. The Chief Settlement Commissioner,

after hearing both parties, Kalu Khan and the representative of the

District Collector, allowed the revision. It was held that a minimum

notice period of 15 days as is required under Rule 117 of the

Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Rules, 1955

(hereinafter referred to as “the Rules of 1955”) has not been

followed. In the present case, the notice issued to Kalu Khan was

only for one week. It was also noted that Kalu Khan who had

sought an adjournment on the ground of illness was not properly

dealt with. Accordingly, the order was set aside, and the matter

was remanded to the District Collector-cum-Settlement

Commissioner with a direction to pass a fresh order after hearing

the legal representatives of Kalu Khan and Tulsiram.

5) In consequence of the remand order, fresh proceedings

were commenced before the District Magistrate-cum-Settlement

Commissioner. The Settlement Commissioner, after hearing the

Nagar Palika, Nagaur, and the legal representatives of Kalu Khan,

Tulsiram and Bhanwarlal, allowed the proceedings and set aside

the Sanad, holding that the Managing Officer, in connivance with

Kalu Khan and the purchasers, had obtained the Sanad. While

setting aside the Sanad, it was noted in the order that as per the

records, 149 bighas and 8 biswas of land was recorded on the

names of Wali Mohammad and Mohammad Ramzan Qazi. Out of

this, an extent of 68 bighas and 2 biswas was declared evacuee

property. Further, land measuring 40 bighas and 12 biswas in the

name of Mohammad Ramzan was recorded as khatedari land of

Kalu Khan, and the remaining land was recorded as gair mumkin,

including Agor, road, and rasta.

6) The order of the District Collector-cum-Settlement

Commissioner was again challenged before the Divisional

Commissioner, Bikaner, under Section 20(3) of the Act of 1954.

The Divisional Commissioner, Bikaner, by order dated 16.03.1999,

allowed the proceedings and set aside the order of the Settlement

Commissioner dated 29.06.1998, and once again remanded the

matter for fresh consideration. The grounds for setting aside the

order were: (i) the parties were not properly heard; (ii) the

District Collector failed to determine whether the disputed land

formed part of the compensation pool; and (iii) the old and new

survey numbers were not properly compared and appreciated.

Pursuant to the second remand order, the District Magistrate-cum-

Settlement Commissioner again took up the proceedings after

hearing all the parties. By order dated 31.05.1999, he found that

the lands bearing Khasra Nos. 558, 559, 560, and 560/1,

admeasuring 149 bighas and 8 biswas, located in Nagaur

(hereinafter referred as Subject Properties) were the khatedari

lands of Wali Mohammad and Mohammad Ramzan Qazi. On the

basis of the above findings, it was recorded by the Patwari in the

revenue records that the lands were evacuee properties, which

was further corroborated by the Girdawari entries for Samvat

2002-2008. The Settlement Commissioner also took note of the

list of custodian lands and consequently found that Kalu Khan was

in occupation of the lands. Accordingly, the lands were ordered to

be sold for a consideration of Rs. 2,524.24/-. While confirming the

Sanad in respect of a major portion of the land, he further

directed that the land claimed to have been allotted to the Nagar

Palika, Nagaur, be verified to ascertain whether such transfer had

taken place prior to or subsequent to the grant of the Sanad. This

direction was issued to the revenue authorities working in the

office of the District Collector cum Settlement Commissioner. He

further directed that the open lands situated along side of the road

passing through the lands covered under the Sanad shall not be

claimed by the Sanad holders or their successors-in-interest.

7) Ibrahim Khan, Tulsiram, and Bhanwarlal, who were the writ

petitioners in C.W. No. 3854/2000, have challenged certain

directions contained in the order dated 31.05.1999 passed by the

District Magistrate-cum-Settlement Commissioner by filing

Revision Case No. 3/1999. Surprisingly, one Ramswaroop, who

claimed to have purchased a small portion of the disputed lands

from Tulsiram, filed a revision against the said order of the District

Collector cum Settlement Commissioner, which was registered as

Revision Case No.4/1999. An important fact to be noted is that the

District Magistrate-cum-Settlement Commissioner, at whose

instance the suo motu proceedings were initiated, which form the

foundation of the present litigation, and who had been contesting

the matter on behalf of the Government, did not pursue any

further proceedings against the order dated 31.05.1999. The

Municipality, i.e., Nagar Palika, also did not challenge the said

order of the Settlement Commissioner. The Divisional

Commissioner, by a common order dated 03.10.2000, dismissed

the revision petition filed by the present petitioners and allowed

the revision filed by Ramswaroop, thereby setting aside the order

dated 31.05.1999 passed by the District Collector-cum-Settlement

Commissioner. Consequently, the order dated 15.06.1972 passed

by the Managing Officer granting the Sanad was also set aside. In

this background, the present writ petitions have been filed.

8) The case set up by Kalu Khan, his legal heirs, and the

subsequent purchasers is that the lands bearing Khasra Nos.558

(7 bighas 16 biswas), 559 (20 bighas 19 biswas), 560 (120 bighas

12 biswas), and 560/1 (well), admeasuring total 149 bighas and

08 biswas, situated at Nagaur, belonged to Wali Mohammad and

Mohammad Ramzan Qazi. It is stated that they migrated to

Pakistan in the year 1947. Upon their migration, proceedings were

initiated under Section 7 of the Administration of Evacuee Property

Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act of 1950”) for

declaring the properties owned by them at various places,

including the land in dispute, as evacuee properties. Initially, on

the basis of admissions, the subject lands were declared as

evacuee properties by order dated 18.01.1951. Subsequently, the

claims of third properties relating to various properties owned by

Wali Mohammad and Mohammad Ramzan Qazi were dealt with

independently, including the claim made by Kalu Khan.

9) The District Assistant Custodian, by order dated

04.08.1955, rejected the claims made by various persons,

including Kalu Khan. Kalu Khan had set up claims in respect of

subject properties at various places, including a claim of having

invested money in the development of the property. Similarly, one

Karimuddin, who claimed to have an interest in property situated

at Ramsia, also pursued his claim. He challenged the proceedings

of Asst.Custodian before the Custodian of Evacuee Property,

Rajasthan. The Custodian, by order dated 19.03.1956, dismissed

his appeal.

10) It is also claimed that the subject lands were notified

under Section 7 of the Act of 1950 as evacuee properties, which

included the present disputed land (Annexure-13). Subsequently,

by a general notification issued under Section 12 of the Act of

1954, the evacuee properties were acquired by the Central

Government for public purposes, namely for the relief and

rehabilitation of displaced persons, including the payment of

compensation to such persons. Thereafter, these properties were

made part of the compensation pool created under Section 14 of

the Act of 1954. The Managing Officer was placed in charge of the

management of the compensation pool of evacuee properties. It is

further claimed that Kalu Khan’s possession was uninterrupted and

that his occupation was protected. In fact, a notice of eviction was

also issued to him; however, such proceedings were not carried

forward, and he continued to remain in possession of the lands,

which had been declared evacuee properties. Subsequently, they

formed part of the compensation pool. Despite the acquisition of

the evacuee properties for the public purpose of relief and

rehabilitation of displaced persons, including the payment of

compensation, Kalu Khan was remained in continuous possession

of the properties. Even after such acquisition, possession was

never taken over by the Managing Officer. It is also claimed that

as per the policy of the Rehabilitation Department, pending cases

were to be dealt with by the State Government on a commission

basis, and directions were issued to recover the prices of the lands

as fixed by the Regional Commissioner, Rajasthan. Pursuant to this

policy, Kalu Khan is stated to have made an application on

06.05.1972 for allotment of the lands at the price fixed by the

Regional Commissioner. The Managing Officer, upon collecting the

price of the lands covered under the Sanad, issued the Sanad

dated 15.06.1972. It is contended that the said Sanad was issued

in accordance with due process, in terms of the policy decisions of

the Union of India, the State Government, and the authorities

under the Act of 1954; and therefore, such an order ought not to

have been interfered with by the District Magistrate cum

Settlement Commssioner or any other authority in exercise of suo

motu powers.

11) The initial stand of the State Government as represented

by the District Magistrate-cum-Settlement Commissioner as

reflected from the suo moto proceedings initiated by notice dated

07.10.1972, was that the subject lands in the present litigation

were not custodian lands and that Kalu Khan was never in

possession of the same. In effect, the State Government took the

position that the lands were Government lands and remained in its

possession. Subsequently, the stand of the District Magistrate-

cum-Settlement Commissioner, representing the State, was that

the old Khasra Nos. 558, 559, 560, and 560/1, admeasuring 149

bighas and 08 biswas, were assigned new Khasra numbers

pursuant to the resettlement carried out in the year 1964. It was

stated that new Khasra Nos. 568, 569, 570, 571, 578, and 582,

admeasuring 68 bighas and 2 biswas, were recorded as custodian

lands; further, new Khasra Nos. 579, 580, and 581, admeasuring

40 bighas and 12 biswas, were recorded as khatedari lands in the

name of Kalu Khan; and new Khasra Nos. 594 (11 bighas), 564

(21 bighas), 565 (5 bighas), 583 (3 bighas), and 626 (12 biswas),

admeasuring in total 48 bighas and 12 biswas, were recorded as

gair mumkin (including Agor).

12) Subsequently, the State, represented by the District

Collector, had taken yet another stand that the entire lands

comprised in the old survey numbers corresponding to the new

survey numbers, admeasuring 149 bighas and 8 biswas, were

evacuee properties, and that prior to such declaration, they were

the khatedari lands of Wali Mohammad and Mohammad Ramzan.

It was further stated that the lands were recorded as evacuee

properties by the Patwari on the basis of a letter dated 09.02.1959

received from the District Assistant Custodian, and that a letter

dated 06.11.1965 issued by the Regional Settlement

Commissioner also contained a list of custodian lands part of

compensation pool, including the subject lands admeasuring 149

bighas and 08 biswas and Kalu Khan was shown as an occupant. It

was also stated that a portion of the land had been allotted to the

Nagar Palika, Nagaur.

13) Initially, stand of the District Magistrate-cum-Settlement

Commissioner and Nagarpalika were that 140 bighas of land was

allotted to the Nagar Palika; however, this was subsequently

changed to the effect that only the land comprised in Khasra No.

564 had been allotted. There was lack of consistency in the stand

of the State Government with regard to its rights over the lands in

question. The State has taken contradictory positions from time to

time either denying or accepting various proceedings and actions,

without maintaining any coherence or consistency in their stand.

14) The stand of the Nagar Palika is also inconsistent. At one

stage, it was asserted that the land had been allotted in the year

1970 and that possession was delivered immediately thereafter;

at another stage, it was stated that the allotment was made in

1971 and possession was delivered in the same year. At one point,

it was claimed that 140 bighas had been allotted; at another

stage, it was asserted that the entire lands in Khasra No. 564 had

been allotted. It was further claimed that the allotted lands were

developed into plots with the approval of the Town Planning

authorities, several blocks were sold, and one block remained

unsold despite preparation of plans. The Nagar Palika has also

taken the stand that the subject lands were never evacuee

properties and was never acquired under the provisions relating to

the compensation pool, and they were classified gair mumkin

lands. On this basis, it has been contended that the Sanad was

wrongly issued by the Managing Officer in favour of Kalu Khan and

its cancellation was justified, and that no interference is called for.

15) Heard the arguments of learned counsel for the parties

contesting the litigation.

16) The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners have

contended that the subject lands originally belonged to Wali

Mohammad and Mohammad Ramzan Qazi, who migrated to

Pakistan; whereupon proceedings were initiated under the

provisions of the Act of 1950, and the lands were declared

evacuee properties. Entries to this effect were also made in the

revenue records, and the lands were subsequently notified as

evacuee properties in the Rajasthan Gazette. Although the lands

were declared evacuee properties on account of the migration of

khatedars to Pakistan, the possession of Kalu Khan continued until

the grant of the Sanad. It is also submitted that the evacuee

properties were subsequently acquired under Section 12 of the Act

of 1954 and made part of the compensation pool and such lands

were under the management of the Managing Officer. The

Managing Officer was competent to transfer such lands, subject to

the rules and the decisions of the competent authorities. It is

stated that the lands were accordingly transferred by way of

allotment after collecting the sale consideration, in terms of the

decision taken in the meetings between the Central Government

and the State Government officials, wherein the recovery of the

price of the lands from the person in the occupancy was fixed.

17) It is also contended by the learned counsel for the

petitioners that the entire suo motu proceedings initiated by the

District Magistrate-cum-Settlement Commissioner are without

jurisdiction. It is submitted that the Settlement Commissioner,

being the appellate authority over the orders passed by the

Managing Officer, cannot be treated as an aggrieved party so as to

initiate suo motu proceedings. It is also further contended that,

even assuming such proceedings could be initiated, the same

authority could not adjudicate the matter himself, as this would be

contrary to the fundamental principles of natural justice, which

require that no person having an interest in the litigation should

decide it. Therefore, it is argued that the entire proceedings,

which form the foundation of the litigation spanning over the last

53 years, are without jurisdiction and are liable to be set aside as

unsustainable in law.

18) The learned counsel for the petitioners has also

contended that the findings recorded by the revisional authority to

the effect that the subject lands are not evacuee properties and do

not form part of the compensation pool, are unsustainable in law.

It is submitted that such findings were rendered without

impleading the necessary and proper parties, namely, the

Managing Officer, Competent Officer and the Central Government,

which exercises control over the properties in question. Any

findings recorded in their absence are liable to be set aside, and

the entire proceedings before such authorities deserve to be

dismissed on the ground of non-joinder of proper and necessary

parties.

19) The learned counsel for the petitioners further contended

that the revisional authority, without verifying the relevant records

and in the absence of any appeal by the Government against the

findings of the District Magistrate-cum-Settlement Commissioner,

has arrived at its own conclusions based on case set up by a third

party, who claims to be a purchaser under Kalu Khan. It is

submitted that such a purchaser, claiming locus standi on the

basis of his purchase, cannot be permitted to set up a new case

which was never pleaded earlier. Even if any such new case is

sought to be introduced, the same cannot form the basis for

setting aside the entire findings of the Settlement Commissioner,

particularly when no appeal has been preferred by the State

Government through any of its officers, including the District

Collector or the Nagar Palika. It is further contended that the

findings recorded by the District Collector, even assuming to be

within jurisdiction, ought to be accepted to the extent that the

subject lands are evacuee properties; and they were acquired

under the Act of 1954, and that they form part of the

compensation pool.

20) It is also contended that the alleged allotment of the

property in favour of the Nagar Palika by the State Government,

when the lands had already formed part of the compensation pool,

is without jurisdiction and such allotment does not confer any right

or title over the said land. A person having no right, title, or

possession cannot validly transfer any such right or interest in

favour of the Nagar Palika. Even assuming that there were

proceedings for transfer of a part of the subject land by the State

Government to the Nagar Palika, the same cannot create any right

or title in its favour, as the transferor itself had no right or title in

the land. The Nagar Palika, on the basis of such an alleged

transfer, which is invalid do not derive any legal right and cannot

claim for ownership or possession of the property. Any such

proceedings, even if they exist, reflecting transfer of lands to the

Nagar Palika by the Government, are void ab initio and do not

confer any right or title upon the transferee. Therefore, the claim

set up by the Nagar Palika is liable to be rejected.

21) It is further contended that the subject lands are

agricultural lands forming part of the compensation pool and was

under the management of the Managing Officer by virtue of its

acquisition for a public purpose, namely, the relief and

rehabilitation of displaced persons under the Act of 1954. The

Managing Officer, subject to the provisions of the Act, 1954 and

the Rules, has the power to allot/transfer such lands in order to

fulfill the object of the acquisition. It is submitted that although

the lands are situated in an urban area, they retain the character

of agricultural lands, and their allotment or transfer can be

effected by the Managing Officer. Such transfer is not restricted

only to displaced persons or their associations; the land can also

be transferred to persons other than displaced persons, in

accordance with the provisions of the Act and the Rules. It is

further contended that the finding of the revisional authority that

Kalu Khan was not a displaced person, and therefore ineligible for

allotment, is contrary to the scheme and provisions of the Act of

1954 and the Rules of 1955. The statutory framework permits the

allotment and sale of such agricultural lands situated in urban

areas, as is evident from Section 20 of the Act of 1954 and the

Rules framed thereunder.

22) Finally, it is contended that the transfer of urban

agricultural lands is governed by Chapter XV of the Rules of 1955,

which permits sale either by public auction or by tender or by any

other mode as may be directed by general or special orders of the

competent authority, including the Chief Settlement Commissioner.

It is submitted that the Regional Commissioner determined the

value of the land on the basis of decisions taken by the competent

authorities of the Central and State Governments. In terms of the

policy so adopted, it was decided to regularise possession of

occupants of lands forming part of the compensation pool by

collecting the price of the lands as fixed by the Regional

Commissioner. The Managing Officer, accordingly, collected the

said amount, as has also been noted by the District Magistrate-

cum-Settlement Commissioner in his subsequent order. It is,

therefore, contended that the order of the Managing Officer do not

suffer from any illegality, and there are no material to substantiate

allegations of fraud or irregularity. Consequently, it is prayed that

the writ petitions be allowed and the adverse observations and

directions issued by the District Collector cum Settlement

Commissioner and the revisional authority be set aside, and the

Sanad granted in favour of Kalu Khan be upheld.

23) Per contra, the learned Additional Advocate General

appearing for the State, along with the learned counsel for the

Union of India, opposed the contentions raised by the petitioners.

The learned Additional Advocate General, at one stage, contended

that the lands are not custodian lands but they are Government

lands. At another stage, it was contended that the subject

properties are not evacuee property, and they were never

declared as such under the Act of 1950, and that it was never

acquired under the Act of 1954. Subsequently, a different stand

was taken to the effect that part of the land was declared evacuee

property and part was classified as gair mumkin land as per the

settlement records. It was further contended that the gair

mumkin lands were allotted to the Nagar Palika for development,

and that the Nagar Palika, after obtaining approval from the Town

Planning authorities, developed the lands and sold the plots.

24) The learned AAG also contended that, even assuming that

the lands formed part of the compensation pool, the Sanad issued

by the Managing Officer suffers from apparent errors. It was

submitted that the form and manner in which the Sanad was

issued indicate non-compliance with the prescribed procedure and

reveal irregularities suggesting the connivance and fraud between

the applicant, Kalu Khan, and the Managing Officer. It was also

pointed out that a complaint was registered in this regard, though

Tulsiram and Bhanwarlal were ultimately exonerated. It is further

submitted that agricultural lands situated in urban areas, if not

allotted to displaced persons or their association, must be

disposed of strictly in accordance with Chapter XV of the Rules of

1955. The said provisions contemplate disposal of such lands by

way of public auction, and not by any other method. The process

adopted in granting the Sanad in the present case does not

comply the procedure as required under the Rules, and therefore,

the grant of the Sanad is illegal and unsustainable. It is also

contended that the District Magistrate-cum-Settlement

Commissioner, though an appellate authority, is the competent

authority to initiate proceedings suo motu, and no fault could be

found with such action. Therefore, the proceedings cannot be

interfered on the ground that they were initiated suo motu. It is

further submitted that, although no appeal was filed by the State

Government and the Nagar Palika being aggrieved by the order of

the Settlement Commissioner, the revisional authority has rightly

interfered on the basis of a revision filed by a third party, who

claimed to have purchased the land from Tulsiram, who in turn

had purchased it from Kalu Khan. The impugned orders, therefore,

do not suffer from any legal infirmity.

25) The learned Senior Counsel, Dr. Sachin Acharya,

appearing for the respondent-Nagar Palika, Nagaur, while partly

adopting the arguments of learned AAG representing the State,

has contended that the impugned order of the revisional authority

clearly demonstrates that the manner and hastiness exhibited by

the Managing Officer in issuing the Sanad on the application of

Kalu Khan, coupled with the involvement of third-party purchasers

at the initial stage–by entering into an agreement and thereafter

speedily transferring the land in favour of Tulsiram and Bhanwarlal

on the basis of an allegedly forged communication between the

Rehabilitation Department, Jaipur, and the Asst. Custodian/

Tehsildar, indicate that the case involves fraud and forgery, in

issuance of an invalid Sanad. It is also his submission that

possession and ownership of the lands had already been

transferred to the Nagar Palika by the State Government much

prior to the issuance of the Sanad. It is contended that, before

issuing the Sanad, the concerned authority ought to have afforded

an opportunity to the Nagar Palika to present its case, which has

not been issued. Thus, on this ground as well, the impugned order

does not warrant any interference.

26) It is also submitted by the learned Senior Counsel

appearing for the respondent-Nagar Palika, Nagaur that the

records clearly indicate that the properties in question were not

evacuee properties. It is further contended that, even assuming

that a portion of the land could be treated as evacuee properties,

the remaining portion cannot be so classified as evacuee

properties and they must be treated as abandoned property of one

of the co-owners of the land. It is argued that once such lands are

treated as abandoned properties, they vests in the State

Government and cannot be regarded as evacuee properties so as

to form part of the compensation pool or be acquired under the

provisions of the Act of 1954. Accordingly, he prayed to dismiss

the writ petition.

27)        The learned ASG was also heard.

28)        I have considered the rival contentions of all the parties

and carefully perused the material available on record.

29) In the backdrop of the above contentions, the issues that

arise for consideration are as follows: (i) Whether the subject

lands are evacuee properties; (ii) Whether the said lands were

declared evacuee properties in accordance with the provisions of

the Acts of 1949 and 1950; (iii) Whether the lands were acquired

under Section 12 of the Act of 1954; (iv) Whether the procedure

adopted by the Managing Officer in granting the Sanad suffers

from any procedural irregularity or illegality; (v) Whether the

appellate authority can initiate suo motu proceedings, and if so,

whether it can adjudicate the matter on that basis; (vi) Whether

the proceedings conducted before the authorities are vitiated for

non-joinder of proper and necessary parties, namely the Managing

Officer and/or competent officer or the Central Government.

30) A close scrutiny of the pleadings of the Government as

well as the Nagar Palika, along with those of the claimants clearly

demonstrate that originally, the lands bearing Khasra Nos. 558,

559, 560, and 560/1, situated in Nagaur, recorded in the names of

Wali Mohammad and Mohammad Ramzan Qaji. The records, as

well as the eviction notice issued by the Asst Custodian, and the

pleadings of the Managing Officer, clearly established that Wali

Mohammad and Mohammad Ramzan Qaji were recorded

Khatedars and that their names were duly recorded in the revenue

records and Mr. Kalu Khan was shown in occupation/possession.

31) In this regard, it is relevant to refer to Section 2(d) of the

Act of 1950 which defines “Evacuee” , which reads hereunder:-

“2. Definitions.-In this Act, unless the context otherwise
requires,-

(a) to (c) ………….

(d) “evacuee” means any person-

(i) who, on account of the setting up of the
Dominions of India and Pakistan or on account of
civil disturbances or the tear of such disturbances,
leaves or has, on or after the 1st day of March,
1947, left, any place in a State for any place
outside the territories now forming part of India,
or

(ii) …..

(iii)…… [or]

(iv) ……….or

(D.B. SAW/183/2014 has been filed in this matter. Please refer the same for further orders)
(Uploaded onon08/04/2026
(Downloaded 08/04/2026atat10:30:30
08:51:30AM)
PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:14231] (25 of 58) [CW-148/2001]

(v)……….”

32) It is also relevant to refer to Sections, 7, 8, 9 and 18 of

the Act of 1950, they read as hereunder:-

“7. Notification of evacuee property.-(1) Where the
Custodian is of opinion that any property is evacuee
property within the meaning of this Act, he may, as may
be prescribed to after causing notice thereof to be given
in such manner the persons interested, and after holding
such inquiry into the matter as the circumstances of the
case permit, pass an order declaring any such property to
be evacuee property,
(1A)……

(2)……..

(3) The Custodian shall, from time to time, notify, either
by publication in the Official Gazette or in such other
manner as may be prescribed, all properties declared by
him to be evacuee properties under sub-section (1).”

xxx xxx xxx

“8. Vesting of evacuee property in the Custodian.- (1)
Any property declared to be evacuee property under
section 7 shall be deemed to have vested in the Custodian
for the State,-

(a) in the case of the property of an evacuee as
defined in sub-clause (i) of clause (d) of section
2, from the date on which he leaves or left any
place in a State for any place outside the territories
now forming part of India;

(b)……. and

(c) ……

(2) Where immediately before the commencement
of this Act, any property in a State had vested as
evacuee property in any person exercising the
powers of Custodian under any law repealed
hereby, the property shall, on the commencement
of this Act, be deemed to be evacuee property
declared as such within the meaning of this Act and
shall be deemed to have vested in the Custodian
appointed or deemed to have been appointed for
the State under this Act, and shall continue to so
vest:

(D.B. SAW/183/2014 has been filed in this matter. Please refer the same for further orders)
(Uploaded onon08/04/2026
(Downloaded 08/04/2026atat10:30:30
08:51:30AM)
PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:14231] (26 of 58) [CW-148/2001]

Provided that where at the commencement of this Act
there is pending before the High Court, the Custodian or
any other authority for or in any State any proceeding
under section 8 or section 30 of the Administration of
Evacuee Property Ordinance, 1949 (12 of 1949), or under
any other corresponding law repealed by the
Administration of Evacuee Property Ordinance, 1949 (27
of 1949), then notwithstanding anything contained in this
Act or in any other law for the time being in force, such
proceeding shall be disposed of as if the definitions of
“evacuee property” and “evacuee” contained in section 2
of this Act had become applicable thereto.

[(2A) Without prejudice to the generality of the
provisions contained in sub-section (2), all property which
under any law repealed hereby purports to have vested as
evacuee property in any person exercising the powers of
Custodian in any State shall, notwithstanding any defect
in, or the invalidity of, such law or any judgment, decree
or order of any Court, be deemed for all purposes to have
validly vested in that person, as if the provisions of such
law had been enacted by Parliament and such property
shall, on the commencement of this Act, be deemed to
have been evacuee property declared as such within the
meaning of this Act and accordingly, any order made or
other action taken by the Custodian or any other
authority in relation to such property shall be deemed to
have been validly and lawfully made or taken.]

(3)……….

(4) Where after any evacuee property has vested in the
Custodian any person is in possession thereof, he
shall be deemed to be holding it on behalf of the
Custodian and shall on demand surrender possession of
it to the Custodian or to any other person duly authorized
by him in this behalf.”

              xxx            xxx             xxx


33)        Prior to the Act of 1950, the law governing the regulation

of evacuees and evacuee properties in the Marwar area was the

Marwar Evacuees (Administration of Property) Act, 1949

(hereinafter referred to as “the Act of 1949”). These provisions are

also relevant for the purposes of the present case, as the

properties in question are located in the Marwar region. Sections

2(b) and (c), and Sections 4 and 7 of the Act of 1949 are relavant

and they read as under:

“2. In this Act unless there is anything repugnant in
subject or context-

(a) …

(b) Evacuee” means a person ordinarily resident in or
owning property or carrying on business within Marwar
who on account of civil disturbances or the fear of
such disturbances, or the partition of the country: –

(i) leaves. or has since the first day of March
1947, left Marwar for a place outside India, or

(ii) cannot personally occupy or supervise his
business, or watch his interests or enforce his
rights.

(c) “evacuce property” includes all property in which
an evacuee has any right or interest but does not
include any movable property in his immediate
physical possession;”

xxx xxx xxx

“4. All evacuee property situated within Marwar shall vest
in the Custodian for the purposes of this Act and shall
continue to be so vested until it is returned to the owner
in accordance with the provisions of section 12.”

xxx xxx xxx

“7. (1) Any person claiming any right to or interest in any
property of which the Custodian has taken possession or
assumed control under Section 6 may prefer such claim to
the Custodian by an application within thirty days
from the date on which the possession of the property
was taken.

(2) The Custodian may, after summary inquiry, reject the
application if it appears to him that the claim is
untenable.

(3) If upon such inquiry it appears to the Custodian that
the applicant has a right to or interest in the property, he
may make such order as he considers proper in order to

give effect to such right or interest, consistently with the
objects of this Act;

Provided that if the Custodian is satisfied that the
property is not evacuee property and that the applicant is
entitled to the exclusive possession of the property, he
may deliver possession of the property to the applicant.
(4) The Custodian shall record an order setting out his
findings and the reasons therefor.

(4-A) The Custodian or Additional Custodian may, at any
time on his own motion or on application made to him,
call for records of any proceedings under this Section
pending before or disposed of by an Assistant or Deputy
Custodian, for the purpose of satisfying himself as to the
legality or propriety of any order passed in the aforesaid
proceedings and may pass any orders in relation thereto
as he may think fit;

Provided that the Custodian or Additional Custodian shall
not under this sub-section pass an order revising or
modifying such order and affecting any person without
giving such person an opportunity of being heard;
Provided further that if one of the officers aforesaid takes
action under this sub-section, the other shall not be
competent to do so.

(5) Any person aggrieved by an order made under sub-
section (4) or (4-A) may appeal to the District Judge
within one month of the making of the order.

(6) The High Court may of its own motion or on
application made to it call for the record of any
proceedings relating to an evacuee property whether
pending or disposed of under sub-sections (4), (4-A) or
(5), for the purpose of satisfying itself as to the legality or
propriety of an order passed in the aforesaid proceedings,
and may pass such orders in relation thereto as it may
think fit.

(7) Subject to the decision of the District Judge on appeal
or the High Court in revision, the order of the Custodian
under sub-section (4) or (4-A) shall be final and
conclusive.”

33.1) By virtue of the various provisions contained in the Act of

1949, as detailed hereinabove, any person who left, or has been

residing since the first day of March, 1949 or is unable to

personally occupy or supervise his property, watch his interests, or

enforce his rights, is deemed to be an “evacuee.” Such property

automatically vests in the Custodian. In contrast, the provisions

under the Act of 1950, particularly the definition of “evacuee,” are

more elaborate one, and the concept of “evacuee property” also

differs slightly. The evacuee properties which were vested with

custodian under Marwar repealed Act deemed to vest with

custodian from the date of commencement Act, 1950.

33.2) The various documents produced by the petitioners,

including the notifications published in the Rajasthan Gazette and

the revenue records show that the subject lands were originally

recorded in the names of Wali Mohammad and Mohammad

Ramzan Qazi. The State Government Gazette dated 11.03.1950

(Annexure-5), along with the notification issued thereunder,

clearly indicates that certain properties of Ramzan Qazi of Nagaur,

particularly house property, were declared as evacuee property.

This notification suggests that Mohammad Ramzan Qazi was an

evacuee and that some of his properties, which were brought to

the notice of the Assistant Custodian, were declared as evacuee

properties. Apart from the aforesaid Gazette notification and the

revenue records, there is a clear admission as reflected in various

orders passed by the authorities below, demonstrates that part of

the subject lands i.e., 68 bighas and 2 biswas, had been treated

as evacuee properties. However, the State Government as well as

the Nagar Palika have failed to place any material on record to

show how and under what proceedings the said lands were

declared as evacuee properties, and why the remaining lands were

not so declared. No revenue record has been produced to

establish that the Government was the owner of the subject

properties prior to 1950 so as to substantiate its claim that the

lands comprised in the old Khasra numbers are Government land.

33.3) The entire proceedings undertaken by the District

Magistrate-cum-Settlement Commissioner proceeded on the

premise that the subject lands covered under the Sanad werre not

Custodian lands and that Kalu Khan was not in possession as is

evident from the initial notice issued for taking suo motu

cognizance. The said premise is not supported by any evidence. A

vague and bald claim has been made without support of any

revenue record. On the contrary, the revenue records produced by

the petitioners clearly demonstrate that the lands in question were

recorded in the names of Wali Mohammad and Mohammad

Ramzan Qazi. The Gazette notification dated 11.03.1950 further

establishes that one of them, namely Mohammad Ramzan Qazi,

was declared an evacuee. Once he was so declared, although the

revenue records reflect common ownership with Wali Mohammad,

the interest of Mohammad Ramzan Qazi, by virtue of the

provisions of the Marwar Evacuees (Administration of Property)

Act, 1949, particularly Section 4 thereof, vested in the Custodian,

unlike the procedure contemplated under Section 7 of the Act of

1950. All the properties were treated as properties of Mohd.

Ramzan.

33.4) The Jamabandi (Annexure-3) clearly shows that Wali

Mohammad and Mohammad Ramzan Qazi were the recorded

khatedars of old Khasra Nos.558 to 560 and 560/1, admeasuring

149 bighas and 8 biswas, and that the lands were recorded as

agricultural lands. The Government has not produced any revenue

record prior to 1950 to establish its ownership over the said

property.

34) The stand taken by the Government that the lands are

gair mumkin, agor, and covered by roads and rastas is based on

the alleged settlement survey of 1964. The proceedings drawn

under the Act of 1949/1950, as reflected in Annexure-6, clearly

demonstrate that, by order dated 18.09.1951, the District

Assistant Custodian declared two maidans and three fields located

in Nagaur as evacuee properties on the basis of the claim made by

the son of Mohammad Ramzan Qazi. Annexure-7, being a letter

dated 09.02.1951 issued by the Assistant Custodian to the

Tehsildar, was consequential to the declaration dated 08.01.1951,

whereby the subject lands along with two maidans were declared

as evacuee properties. By the said letter, the Tehsildar was

directed to record subject lands as Custodian lands and directed

to report compliance. Annexure-4 is the Girdawari for Samvat

years 2004-2007 of village Nagaur and it clearly demonstrates

that the said directions were complied by the Patwari, who

recorded the subject lands as evacuee properties. Further, the

Gazette Notification of the Government of Rajasthan dated

09.08.1956, issued in compliance with the requirements of

Section 7 of the Act of 1950, clearly establishes that the subject

lands were notified as evacuee properties.

35) The respondents, however, have set up a new case that

the subject lands were not notified under Section 12 of the

Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954

( herein after referred as Act of 1954), on the ground that they

were not evacuee properties, and that no notification, as required

under Section 7 of the Act of 1950, exists. Such contention is also

unmerited. In fact, the subject lands were vested with custodian

under section 4 of repealed Act, 1949. By virtue of section 8(2) of

Act, 1950, the lands vested in the hands of custodian under

repealed Act, 1949 are deemed to be vested under new Act, 1950

with effect from commencement of Act, 1950 in terms section

8(2) of Act,1950. Thus, the contention of the learned AAG and

senior counsel appearing for Nagarpalika that the lands covered

under Sanad are not Evacuee property are unmerited and contrary

to record and same is rejected.

36) It has also been contended by respondent that, as per the

admitted case of Kalu Khan, only Mohammad Ramzan Qazi had

migrated; since the lands were commonly held by Wali

Mohammad and Mohammad Ramzan Qazi, the entire lands could

not have been declared as evacuee properties. There is no dispute

that the revenue records clearly demonstrate that both Wali

Mohammad and Mohammad Ramzan Qazi were recorded as

common khatedars of the entire lands which forms the subject

matter of Sanad. There is also evidence to the effect that only

Mohammad Ramzan Qazi had migrated and was declared an

evacuee. There is no evidence on record to show that Wali

Mohammad was ever declared as an evacuee. The material on

record clearly show that Mohammad Ramzan Qazi alone was an

evacuee and the entire composite lands covered under Sanad

were treated as his evacuee properties. Wali Mohammad or his

legal heirs have not made any claim under Section 7(1) of

repealed Act, 1949.

37) In this regard, it is relevant to refer to the provisions of

Sections 4, 5, 6 of the Evacuee Interest (Separation) Act, 1951 as

Amended Act of 1960, the relevant provisions read as under:-

“4. Power to appoint competent officers.

(1)The State Government may, with the approval of
the Central Government, by notification in the Official
Gazette, appoint as many competent officers as may
be necessary for the purpose of performing the
functions assigned to them by or under this Act, and a
competent officer may perform his functions in such
local area or areas as may be specified in the
notification.

(2)No person shall be qualified to be appointed as a
competent officer under this Act unless he has held a
judicial office for at least five years, or has been an
advocate or a pleader for at least seven years.”

xxx xxx xxx
“5. Jurisdiction of competent officers.
A competent officer shall have jurisdiction to decide any
claim relating to any composite property situate within
the limits of the local area of his jurisdiction and such
cases or classes of cases as may, by general or special
order, be transferred to him under section 19 by the
Central Government or the appellate officer.”

xxx xxx xxx
“6. Notice to submit claims.

(1) For the purpose of determining or separating the
evacuee interest in a composite property, any
competent officer having jurisdiction over such
property may, either on information received in this
behalf from the Custodian or on an application from a
claimant, issue, in such form and manner as may be
prescribed,–

(a) a general notice requiring all persons who
claim interest in such property, and

(b) also a notice on every person who, in the
opinion of the competent officer, may have a claim
in such property, to submit claims, if any, in
respect of that property.

(2) An application under sub- section (1) shall be in
such form and manner as may be prescribed.

(3) No application under this section shall be
entertained if filed after the expiry of one year from the
commencement of the Evacuee Interest (Separation)
Amendment Act, 1960 (27 of 1960 ).”

38) A competent officer has the jurisdiction to decide any claim

relating to composite property and such jurisdiction can be

exercised either on the information received from the Custodian or

on an application made by a claimant. This means that a person

having an interest in such composite property can raise a claim

under Section 6 of the Act of 1951, asserting his interest in

evacuee property forming part of such composite property. Sub-

section (3) of the Section 6 of Act, 1951 is of particular relevance.

The provision clearly stipulates that no application under Section 6

shall be entertained after the expiry of one year from the

commencement of the Evacuee Interest (Separation) Amendment

Act, 1960, which came into force on 15.10.1960. In other words,

any claim relating to any rights in a composite property, whether

already declared as evacuee property or sought to be so declared,

was required to be presented for adjudication either by the

Custodian or by the person having an interest therein, on or

before 14.10.1961. If no such claim was presented within the

prescribed period, the same could not thereafter be entertained.

39) Even under section 7 (1) of repealed Act,1949, an

opportunity is prescribed to any person having any interest in any

declared evacuee property to file claim before custodian which is

not there till date. Even assuming that the subject lands were

commonly owned by Wali Mohammad and Mohammad Ramzan

Qazi, but such properties were declared as evacuee properties of

Mohammad Ramzan Qazi. Any claim on behalf of Wali Mohammad

ought to have been raised either under provisions of repealed

Act,1949 before custodian or under section 6 of Act,1951 before

competent officer within the stipulated period. If no such claim is

lodged, in view of Sub-section (3) of Section 6 of the Act of 1951,

no such issue could remain alive after 15.10.1961. Therefore, the

stand of the government and Nagarpalika that half of the land

belonging to Wali Mohammad, who was not a migrant, was treated

as abandoned land, is untenable. The entire lands comprised in

Khasra Nos. 558 to 560 and 560/1 were declared evacuee

properties in respect of Mohammad Ramzan Qazi. Even if Wali

Mohammad had any subsisting interest, the same could have been

asserted by him within stipulated time which he admittedly had

not done. Consequently, the lands could not be treated as

abandoned land, particularly when it had already vested in the

Custodian. Further, there is no record to show that half of the

Sanad lands were declared as abandoned lands. In the above

circumstances, the claim of the Government and Nagarpalika that

half of the lands, being the subject matter of the present case,

became abandoned lands and consequently treated as gair

mumkin, agor, or as road and rasta, cannot be sustained and is

rejected.

40) The stand of the State Government that there was no

notification under Section 7 of the Act of 1950, cannot be

accepted as a valid contention. Annexure-13 is the Rajasthan

Gazette Notification dated 09.08.1956, which clearly evidences

publication in the Gazette regarding the lands declared as evacuee

properties under Section 7 of the Act of 1950. As per Section 8 of

the Act,1950 the vesting of property takes effect from the date of

its declaration as evacuee property, and such vesting is not

dependent upon the publication of the declaration under Section

7(3) of the Act of 1950. The requirement of publication is

procedural in nature under Section 7, and is not a condition

precedent for the vesting of the property in the Custodian. In the

present case, there is clear evidence of publication of declaration

of the property which comply the requirement of Section 7(3) of

the Act of 1950, as reflected in the Gazette Notification.

41) Such contention can also be rejected on other ground.

The subject lands are situated in Marward region of Rajasthan.

Prior to Act,1950, there was a repealed Act,1949. As per section 4

of repealed Act, 1949, the evacuee lands vest with custodian until

they are returned to owner. Any person having any interest in

such Evacuee lands shall lodge claim before the Custodian under

section 7 of repealed Act, 1949. As per section 8(2) of Act, 1950,

the lands which were vested in the Custodian under repealed Act,

1949 are deemed to be vested under Act, 1950 from the date of

commencement of such Act. Thus, strictly speaking, the procedure

contemplated under section 7 of Act, 1950 for declaring the

Evacuee properties is not applicable to the present properties.

42) The document Annexure-9 is an order passed by the

District Assistant Custodian, Nagaur. This order clearly

demonstrates that various persons have claimed interest in

different lands held by the evacuee. The order also deals with the

claim of Kalu Khan under Point No. 5. The said order was

pronounced on 04.08.1955 which exhaustively adjudicated all the

claims set up by various persons in respect of the evacuee

properties. One such claimant, namely Karimuddin, who claimed

an interest in lands situated in village Ramsia, preferred an appeal

before the Custodian of Evacuee Property, Rajasthan. The said

appeal was also dismissed on 19.03.1956. Thus, all disputes

relating to the subject property involved in the present writ

petitions stood adjudicated by the order dated 04.08.1955 passed

by the Assistant Custodian. Consequently, the said order has

attained finality insofar as the subject lands are concerned.

43) Annexure-11 is the Gazette Notification issued under

Section 12 of the Act of 1954, dated 06.04.1955. The relevant

extracts reads hereunder:-

MINISTRY OF REHABILITATION
New Delhi, the 6th April 1955

S. R. O. 815-Whereas the Central Government is of
opinion that it is necessary to acquire certain evacuee
properties in the State of Rajasthan for a public
purpose being a purpose mentioned in sub-section (1)
of section 12 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation
and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954 (44 of 1954):

Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by
the said sub-section, it is notified that the Central
Government has decided to acquire and hereby
acquires, the evacuee properties specified in the
Schedule hereto annexed:

THE SCHEDULE

All evacuee properties consisting of agricultural
lands and groves (including gardens) in the State of
Rajasthan except all such properties falling under any
one or more of the following categories, that is to say-

(1) any such property-

(i) in respect of which proceedings are pending before
any authority at the date of this notification under the

(D.B. SAW/183/2014 has been filed in this matter. Please refer the same for further orders)
(Uploaded onon08/04/2026
(Downloaded 08/04/2026atat10:30:30
08:51:30AM)
PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:14231] (38 of 58) [CW-148/2001]

Administration of Evacuee Property Act, 1950 (XXXI of
1950) in which the question at issue is whether the
property is or is not evacuee property; or

(ii) in respect of which the period of limitation, if any,
fixed for filing an appeal or revision under the said Act
for disputing the vesting of the property in the
Custodian as evacuee property has not expired:

(2) ……

(3) …….”

44) All disputes relating to evacuee properties, which had

been resolved up to 06.04.1955, were acquired by the said

notification. However, in the present case, all disputes relating to

the subject lands were adjudicated and brought to an end by the

order of the Assistant Custodian dated 04.08.1955. This clearly

indicates that the Notification dated 06.04.1955 is not applicable

to the present case, and consequently, no vesting of the property

could be said to have taken place under Section 12 of the Act of

1954 pursuant to the said notification. There is, however, another

notification dated 20.07.1962, which pertains to properties in

respect of which claims could be raised under the Evacuee Interest

(Separation) Act, 1951. The material on record clearly

demonstrates that the declared evacuee properties were

composite properties. Initially, section 7 of repealed Act, 1949

gives right to lodge claim by any person having any interest in the

evacuee properties. Further, by virtue of the Amendment Act of

1960 to Evacuee Interest (Separation) Act, 1951, a period of one

year is provided for raising any such claim as a last resort.

Suppose, where claims which could have been lodged but not

lodged or if any, had already been lodged and adjudicated and

attained finality, such properties became free from all disputes and

absolutely vest with custodian under section 11 of Act, 1951.

45) In this regard, it is relevant to refer to Section 12 of the

Act of 1954.

“12. Power to acquire evacuee property for
rehabilitation of displaced persons–

(1) If the Central Government is of opinion that it
is necessary to acquire any evacuee property for a
public purpose, being a purpose connected with
the relief and rehabilitation of displaced persons,
including payment of compensation to such
persons, the Central Government any at any time
acquire such evacuee property by publishing in the
Official Gazette a notification to the effect that the
Central Government has decided to acquire such
evacuee property in pursuance of this section.

(2) On the publication of a notification under sub-

section (1), the right, title and interest of any
evacuee in the evacuee property specified in the
notification shall, on and from the beginning of the
date on which the notification is so published, be
extinguished and the evacuee property shall vest
absolutely in the Central Government free from all
encumbrances.

(3) It shall be lawful for the Central Government,
if it so considers necessary, to issue from time to
time the notification referred to in sub-section (1)
in respect of-

(a) all evacuee property generally; or

(b) any class of evacuee property; or

(d) any particular evacuee property.”

46) The aforesaid provision clearly shows that the central

government has power to acquire the evacuee property for a

public purpose, being a purpose connected with the relief and

rehabilitation of displaced persons. For this purpose a notification

under Section 12 (1) of the Act of 1954 required to be published

in official Gazette. From the date of such publication, the lands

vest absolutely with the central government thereby such

properties ceased to be Evacuee properties. Such notification can

be issued from time to time. Such notification may relate to all

evacuee properties generally, or to any class of evacuee

properties, or to all evacuee properties situated in a specified

area, or even to any particular evacuee property. The notifications

published in official gazette from time to time as referred to in the

annexures clearly indicate that they are either general in nature or

relate to a class of evacuee properties such as house properties or

agricultural properties situated in urban or rural areas.

47) In the context of such general acquisition of evacuee

properties, the relevant consideration is when the subject

properties said to have been acquired by the Central Government.

In the present case, disputes remained pending as on 06.04.1955.

The disputes relating to subject lands only concluded by order dt.

04.08.1955 of Assistant Custodian. Thus, the subject lands were

not acquired under notification issued in official gazette

dt.06.08.1955.

48) The records show that subject lands were composite

properties of Wali Mohammad and Mohammad Ramzan Qaji. The

record also shows entire lands in Sanad were declared as Evacuee

properties. The repealed Act of 1949 gives right to lodge claim by

any person who is having any interest in Evacuee property.

Similarly, the Act of 1951 by way of Amendment Act of 1960 has

given final chance to raise any claim over composite properties.

This means that there was ample scope for any person having any

interest in composite properties to raise claims under section 6 of

Act of 1951. Section 6(3) of Act, 1951 provides one year time to

any person having any interest in composite properties to lodge

their claims under the provisions of the Act of 1951. Although the

records demonstrate composite ownership, the law permitted such

claims to be raised within one year from the commencement of

the Amendment Act of 1960, i.e., up to the year 1961. Thereafter,

all claims in respect of the composite property stood barred.

Consequently, the property became free from dispute in the year

15.10.1961.

49) Now question is whether subject lands were acquired

under Section 12 of the Act of 1954. The central government

issued official gazette notification dated 20.07.1962 under Section

12 of Act of 1954. It is also to be noted that notifications issued

under Section 12 of the Act of 1954 are not property-specific

notifications but are general in nature. The said notification reads

as follows:-

A SCHEDULE

S.O. 2344. – New Delhi, the 20th July 1962 –
Whereas the Central Government is of the opinion that
it is necessary to acquire the evacuee properties
specified in the schedule hereto annexed in the State
of Rajasthan for a public purpose being a purpose
connected with the relief and rehabilitation of
displaced persons, including payment of compensation
to such persons.

Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred
by section 12 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation
and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954 (44 of 1954) it is
notified that the Central Government has decided to
acquire and hereby acquires the evacuee properties
specified in the schedule hereto annexed.

A SCHEDULE

(D.B. SAW/183/2014 has been filed in this matter. Please refer the same for further orders)
(Uploaded onon08/04/2026
(Downloaded 08/04/2026atat10:30:30
08:51:30AM)
PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:14231] (42 of 58) [CW-148/2001]

All properties in the State of Rajasthan which
have vested in the Custodian under section 11 of the
Evacuee Interest (Separation) Act, 1951, as a result of
adjudication by the Competent Officers under the
provisions of the said Act, upto 30th June, 1962 and in
respect of which no appeals have been filed and if filed
have been rejected by the Appellate Officer.

______

50) It is relevant to refer to section 11 of Act of 1951 which

reads as follows;

11. Vesting of evacuee interest in the Custodian
free from encumbrances and payments, etc., to be
valid discharge from all claims.

(1) Where in respect of any property, notice
under section 6 is issued but no claim is
filed or found to exist or where any claim in
respect of such property is found to exist and the
competent officer separates the evacuee interest
therein under section 10, the whole property,
or, as the case may be, the evacuee interest in
the property thus separated shall vest in the
Custodian free from all encumbrances and
liabilities and any payment, transfer or partition
made or effected under section 10, in satisfaction
of any claim in respect of the property shall be a
full and valid discharge of all claims in respect of
the property.

51) A reading of the above provision, it is clear that if any

notice is given under section 6 of Act of 1951 but no claim is filed

whole property or evacuee interest separated shall vest in the

Custodian. Any claim relating composite properties when no claim

has been filed under section 6 of Act 1951 deemed to have barred

after 15.10.1961 and thereafter the lands vest in custodian under

section 11 of Act, 1951. The central government issued official

gazette notification dated 20.07.1962 under Section 12 of Act of

1954. It is also general notification. This notification was relating

to lands vested under section 11 of Act, 1951. In view of the

above material, it cannot be contended that there was no

notification under Section 12 of the Act of 1954. This position was

also accepted by the District Collector in his latest order, which,

however, came to be set aside by the revisional authority whose

orders are presently under challenge. The revisional authority

neither called for the relevant records nor made any endeavour to

obtain inputs from the Managing Officer, who was in charge of the

compensation pool and competent officer under Act,1951.

Instead, he proceeded merely on the basis of contentions

advanced from third parties and reached hasty conclusions, by

terming the transactions as fraudulent, and thereby nullified the

entire Sanad without taking note that the genesis of dispute was

that subject lands were not evacuee properties. Such orders of

revisional Authorities is unsustainable.

52) The further question that arises is whether the procedure

adopted by the Managing Officer in granting the Sanad suffers

from any irregularity or illegality, or is the result of any fraud or

forgery. It is needless to state that any plea of fraud or forgery

must contain specific pleadings in this regard. However, the

genesis or foundation of present proceedings lies in the notice dt

07.10.1972 issued by the Settlement Commissioner. The said

notice does not refer to any fraud or forgery. The case has been

improved from time to time without any consistency in stand. The

pleadings were loosely drafted and were not supported by any

evidence. The allegation of forgery pertains to a letter issued by

the Rehabilitation Department, Jaipur, dated 12.06.1972,

addressed to the Managing Officer, wherein a clarification was

made that the price referred to in the letter of the Regional

Commissioner was the price of the entire land for the grant of the

Sanad. However, the District Collector, upon calling of records,

recorded a finding that the letter dated 19.03.1974 was a forged

document. This was never the case set up by the District

Collector-cum-Settlement Commissioner initially. When forgery is

alleged, it must be specifically pleaded and informed by notice to

the opposite party, clearly identifying the document alleged to be

forged. Criminal proceedings were also initiated against Tulsi Ram

and Bhanwar Lal; however, they were acquitted. The conclusion

regarding forgery appears to have been drawn solely on the

ground of alleged hastiness and speedness in processing the grant

of the Sanad. Mere hastiness and speedness by itself cannot be

regarded as conclusive proof to establish that the issuance of

Sanad was the result of forgery. These findings are also

unsustainable.

53) The question that now arises is whether the Sanad was

granted in accordance with the prescribed procedure or suffers

from any illegality. Before proceeds further, it apt to refer certain

provisions of Act of 1954.

54) Section 6 Act of 1954 deals with management of

compensation pool and section 17 Act of 1954 deals with power

and functions of Managing officer and section 20 Act of 1954 deals

power to transfer and they are hereunder:

“6. Management of compensation pool:-

(1) The Central Government may take such
measures as it considers necessary or expedient
for the custody, management and disposal of
the compensation pool in order that it may
be effectively utilised in accordance with
provisions of this Act:

(D.B. SAW/183/2014 has been filed in this matter. Please refer the same for further orders)
(Uploaded onon08/04/2026
(Downloaded 08/04/2026atat10:30:30
08:51:30AM)
PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:14231] (45 of 58) [CW-148/2001]

(2) In particular, and without prejudice to the
generality of the foregoing power, the Central
Government may, for the purposes referred in
sub-section (1) by notification in the Official
Gazette:

(a) appoint such officers as it may deem fit
(hereinafter referred a managing officer); or

(b) ……..

(c) ……..”

“17. Functions and duties of managing
officers and managing corporations-

(1)………

(2) Subject to the provisions of this Act and the
rules made there-under, a managing officer or
managing corporation may take such measures as
he or it considers necessary or expedient for the
purpose of securing, administering, preserving
managing or disposing of any property in the
compensation pool entrusted to him or it and
generally for the purpose of satisfactorily
discharging any of the duties imposed on him or it
by or under this Act and may for any such purpose
as aforesaid, do all acts and incur all expenses
necessary or incidental thereto.

(3)…..”

“20. Power to transfer property out of the
compensation pool–

(1) Subject to rules that may be made under this
Act, the managing officer or managing corporation
may transfer any property out of the compensation
pool–(a) by sale of such property to a displaced
person or any association of displaced persons,
whether incorporate or not, or to any other person,
whether the property is sold by public auction or
otherwise;

(b) by lease of any such property to a displaced
person or an association of displaced persons
whether incorporated or not, or to any other person;

(c) by allotment of any such property to a displaced
person or an association of displaced persons
whether incorporated or not, or to any other person,
on such valuation as the Settlement Commissioner
may determine;

(d) in the case of a share of an evacuee a company,
by transfer of such share to a displaced person or any

(D.B. SAW/183/2014 has been filed in this matter. Please refer the same for further orders)
(Uploaded onon08/04/2026
(Downloaded 08/04/2026atat10:30:30
08:51:30AM)
PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:14231] (46 of 58) [CW-148/2001]

association of displaced persons whether
incorporated or not, or to any other person,
notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in
the Indian Companies Act, 1913 (7 of 1913) or in the
memorandum of articles of association of such
company;

(e) in such other manner as may be prescribed.

(1A) for the purpose of transferring any property out
of the compensation pool under sub-section (i), it
shall be lawful for the managing officer or the
managing corporation to transfer the same to a
displaced persons jointly with any other person or an
association of displaced persons or otherwise.
(2) Every managing officer or managing corporation
selling any immovable property by public auction
under sub-section (1) shall be deemed to be a
Revenue Officer within the meaning of sub-section
(4) of Section 89 of the Indian Registration Act, 1908
(XVI of 1908) (3) Where the ownership of any
property has passed to the buyer before the payment
of the whole of the purchase money, the amount of
the purchase money or any part thereof remaining
unpaid and any interest on such amount or part shall,
notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in
any other law, be a first charge upon the property in
the hands of buyer or any transferee from such buyer
and may, on a certificate issued by the Chief
Settlement Commissioner, be recovered in the same
manner as an arrear of land revenue.”

55) As seen from the section 6(1) of Act of 1954, the primary

responsibility lies with Central Government to take such measures

as it considers necessary or expedient for the custody,

management and disposal of the property of compensation pool.

As per the section 6(2) of the Act of 1954, the Central

Government can appoint any officers to discharge its functions. By

exercising such powers, the Central Government has appointed

Managing Officer to have custody, management and disposal of

properties of compensation pool.

56) It is not in dispute that Section 20 of the Act of 1954

enables the Managing Officer to sell the property not only to

displaced persons or associations of displaced persons, but also to

any other persons, subject to the prescribed rules. Admittedly, the

lands in dispute are situated in Nagaur, which is a municipal town,

and such lands were recorded as agricultural lands at the time of

vesting under the Act of 1950 and also at the time of acquisition

under Section 12 of the Act of 1954. The subsequent re-

settlement, allegedly carried out in 1964, is not of much relevance

to their re-classification and such classification cannot be altered

once the lands are acquired by the Central Government and form

part of the compensation pool prior to re-settlement. Moreover,

there is an overriding provision in respect of actions taken under

the Act of 1954.

57) Chapter V-A of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and

Rehabilitation) Rules, 1955 deals with the allotment of evacuee

agricultural lands situated in urban areas. Rules 34-A to 34-H of

the said Rules prescribe the manner of disposal and allotment, as

well as the categories of persons to whom such land may be

allotted. Rule 34-A to 34-H of the Rules of 1955 reads as follows:-

“Allotment of evacuee agricultural land situated in
urban areas
34A. Application- The provision of this Chapter shall
apply to evacuee agricultural lands situated in urban
areas and acquired under section 12 of the Act.

34B. Valuation- For the purposes of this Chapter, all
lands to which this Chapter applies shall be valued by an
officer appointed in this behalf by the Regional
Settlement Commissioner.

34C. Allotment of agricultural land of the value of
Rs. 10,000/- or less- Where any land to which this
Chapter applies has been leased to a displaced person
and such lands consist of one or more Khasra and is

(D.B. SAW/183/2014 has been filed in this matter. Please refer the same for further orders)
(Uploaded onon08/04/2026
(Downloaded 08/04/2026atat10:30:30
08:51:30AM)
PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:14231] (48 of 58) [CW-148/2001]

valued at Rs. 10,000/- or less, the land shall be allotted
to the lessee:

Provided that where any such land or any part thereof
has been leased to a displaced person and the sub-lessee
has been in occupation of such land or part thereof
continuously from the first January 1956, such land or
part thereof, as the case may be, shall be allotted to
such sub-lessee.

34D. Allotment of agricultural lands consisting of
more than one Khasra, the value of which exceeds
Rs. 10,000/- (1) Where any land to which the Chapter
applies has been leased to a displaced person and such
land consists of more than one Khasra, the aggregate
value of which exceeds Rs. 10,000/- such portion of the
land, the value of which does not exceed Rs. 10,000/- as
the Regional Settlement Commissioner may select, shall
be allotted to such person;

Provided that where any land or any part thereof has
been sub-leased to a displaced person and the sub-lessee
has been in occupation of that land or part thereof
continuously from the first January, 1956, such land or
part thereof, as the case may be, the value of which does
not exceed Rs. 10,000/- as the Regional Settlement
Commissioner may select, shall be allotted to such sub-
lessee.

(2) In selecting the area for allotment under sub-rule (1),
the Regional Settlement Commissioner shall have regard
to the compactness of the area and other relevant
matters.

(3) For the purposes of allotment of land under this rule,
no Khasra shall be sub-divided.

34E. Maximum area of land allotable under this
Chapter- Notwithstanding any thing contained in the
foregoing provisions of the rules –

(a) no Khasra the value of which exceeds Rs.

10,000/- shall be allotted;

(b) the maximum area of land allotted to any one
person shall not exceed Rs. 10,000/- in value.

34F. Certain provisions of Chapter V to apply-
Where any land to which this Chapter applies is allotted

under rule 34-C or rule 34-D, the provisions of rules 25
to 29 (both inclusive) of Chapter V shall, so far as may,
be apply.

34G. Grant of sanad for allotment of lands.- Where
any land to which this Chapter applies is allotted to any
person under rule 34-C or 34-D, the allottee shall be
granted a Sanad in the forms specified in Appendix X-A
or X-B, as the case may be, with necessary
modifications.

34H. Manner of disposal of land not allotted.- Any
land to which this Chapter applies which is not allotted
under this Chapter, shall be disposed of in the manner
provided in Chapter XIV.”

58) The Sanad issued in the present case was in the format of

Rule 34-G of the Rules of 1955, as contained in Appendices XA

and XB. Primarily, such grants relate to allotments made under

Rules 34-C and 34-D of the Rules of 1955. Rule 34-C deals with

the allotment of property to displaced persons where the value is

less than Rs. 10,000/-, whereas Rule 34-D pertains to the

allotment of land to displaced persons where the value exceeds

Rs. 10,000/-.

59) Rule 34-H is also relevant in this regard. It clearly

provides that any land to which Chapter V applies which is not

allotted under this Chapter shall be disposed of in the manner

prescribed under Chapter XIV of the said Rules. Chapter XIV lays

down the procedure for the sale of property forming part of the

compensation pool. It recognizes two modes of sale, namely, sale

by public auction or by inviting tenders. An exception is also

provided to the effect that such property may also be sold in any

other manner as the Chief Settlement Commissioner may, by

general or special order, direct, in terms of Rule 87 of the Rules of

1955. The said rule reads as under:-

“87. Mode of sale of property- Any property
forming part of the compensation pool may be
sold by public auction or by inviting tenders or in
such other manner as the Chief Settlement
Commissioner may, by general or special order
direct.”

60) This implies that the sale of agricultural lands situated in

urban areas, to any other persons other than displaced persons or

associations of displaced persons, is not confined to public auction

or the tender process alone, but may also be effected in such

other manner as may be directed by the Chief Settlement

Commissioner by a general or special order.

61) The contention of the learned AAG and the learned Senior

Counsel is that the subject lands ought to have been sold by

public auction or through a tender process, and not by the method

adopted by the Managing Officer. This argument, prima facie,

appears to be untenable. Rule 87 of the Rules of 1955 permits the

sale of property by any other mode, as may be directed by the

Chief Settlement Commissioner by a general or special order,

apart from public auction or the tender process. The proceedings

of the Regional Settlement Commissioner, as reflected in

Annexure-17, clearly demonstrate that meetings were held

between senior officials of the Central Government and the State

Government with a view to recovering the price of the lands from

persons in possession, whether displaced persons or otherwise.

Pursuant to such meetings, the State Government was authorized

to collect the price of the lands on commission basis, as

determined by the Regional Settlement Commissioner. The

correspondence issued by the Regional Settlement Commissioner

fixing the price of various parcels of lands further indicates that

the authorities intended to settle the claims expeditiously by

offering the lands to the persons in possession. This

communication is not under challenge and not disputed.

62) It is also evident that Kalu Khan was in possession of the

land even prior to declaration of subject lands as evacuee

properties. The eviction notice on record corroborates his

continuous possession. The vesting of property under the Act of

1954 operates only in respect of the interest and rights of the

evacuee, and not the rights of the person in occupation.

63) In this regard, it is relevant to refer to section 18 of Act,

1950 which reads hereunder:

“18. Occupancy or tenancy rights not to be
extinguished.-(1) Where the rights of an evacuee in any
land or in any house or other building consist or consisted of
occupancy or tenancy rights, nothing contained in any law
for the time being in force or in any contract or in any
instrument having the force of law or in any decree or order
of any Court, shall extinguish or be deemed to have
extinguished any such rights either on the tenant becoming
an evacuee within the meaning of this Act or at any time
thereafter so as to prevent such rights from vesting in the
Custodian under the provisions of this Act or to prevent the
Custodian from exercising all or any of the powers conferred
on him by this Act in respect of any such rights, and,
notwithstanding anything contained in any such law,
contract, instrument, decree or order, neither the evacuee
nor the Custodian, whether as an occupancy tenant or as a
tenant for a certain time, monthly or otherwise, of any land,
or house or other buildings, shall be liable to be ejected or
be deemed to have become so liable on any ground
whatsoever for any default of-

(D.B. SAW/183/2014 has been filed in this matter. Please refer the same for further orders)
(Uploaded onon08/04/2026
(Downloaded 08/04/2026atat10:30:30
08:51:30AM)
PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:14231] (52 of 58) [CW-148/2001]

(a) the evacuee committed after he became an evacuee or
within a period of one year immediately preceding the date
of his becoming an evacuee; or

(b) the Custodian.

(2) Where any person acquires or has acquired any rights
under a Provincial Act or a State Act in respect of any
property by reason of being in possession of that property,
whether in pursuance of a grant, lease, or allotment made
by the Custodian or otherwise, the acquisition of such rights
shall not in any way affect or be deemed to have affected
the rights and powers conferred on the Custodian under this
Act in respect of that property.]”

64) The above provision protects the occupancy or tenant

rights of person in possession. Consequently, even after

declaration of properties as evacuee properties, the rights of the

occupant or tenant continue to subsist even after lands vest in the

custodian. In view of these complexities, the authorities in the

highest appear to have taken a general decision to dispose of the

properties by allotting such lands to the persons in possession

upon fixation of the price. Although the format of the Sanad

corresponds to that prescribed under Rule 34-G of the Rules of

1955, the manner of disposal is akin to allotment by fixing

consideration, rather than by resorting to public auction or tender.

Merely because such a format was adopted, it cannot be

concluded that the proceedings were confined only to displaced

persons.

65) This Court also noticed certain confusion with regard to

acquisition of evacuee properties in the notification of vesting,

which appear to have arisen due to general notifications issued

under Section 12 without specifying the details of the properties in

the Schedule at the time of acquisition under the Act of 1954. The

letter dated 06.11.1965 issued by the Regional Settlement

Commissioner, which was never challenged, clearly specifies the

price of the lands. However, the revisional authority concluded

that the challan amount was paid only for a part of the land. There

is no indication as to the basis for such a conclusion, as no

relevant documents were verified or called for from the concerned

authorities. Therefore, such a finding is not supported by any

cogent material. Official acts carry presumption of validity unless

rebutted by evidence demonstrating that they were not performed

in accordance with law. Once a decision was taken and the value

of the land was fixed, it presupposes that the authorities opted to

dispose of the land by allotment upon payment of the determined

price, instead of adopting the regular modes of public auction or

tender for sales to persons other than displaced persons. Such a

course is a recognized procedure under Rule 87 of the Rules of

1955. Therefore, it cannot be said that the Sanad was not granted

in accordance with the prescribed procedure.

66) An argument has also been advanced that the property

was transferred to the Nagar Palika, and that the Nagar Palika

ought to have been heard before the grant of any Sanand. This

argument is also not tenable. Once the land had already been

declared as evacuee property and acquired by the Central

Government in the year 1962 by virtue of a general notification,

any allotment by the State Government, which has no right or

title, in favour of the Nagar Palika, cannot be regarded as creation

of an interest in properties and it cannot be treated as a legally

valid conferment of right in favour of Nagarpalika. A person or

authority having no right or title over a property cannot transfer

any such right, title, or possession to a Municipality. Therefore,

(D.B. SAW/183/2014 has been filed in this matter. Please refer the same for further orders)
(Uploaded onon08/04/2026
(Downloaded 08/04/2026atat10:30:30
08:51:31AM)
PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:14231] (54 of 58) [CW-148/2001]

this contention deserves to be rejected. Furthermore, neither the

State Government nor the Municipality has produced any record to

demonstrate how the State Government acquired title and

possession of the subject lands, particularly when such lands had

already been declared as evacuee properties and were acquired

under Section 12 of the Act of 1954. Accordingly, this contention is

also rejected at the threshold.

67) Dealing with the power of Settlement Commissioner to

take cognizance suo moto of the proceedings, it is relevant to

refer to Section 22 of the Act of 1954, which reads as under:-

“22. Appeals to Chief Settlement Commissioner–

(1) Subject to the provisions of sub-section (2), any
person aggrieved by an order of the Settlement Officer
or a managing officer under this Act may, within thirty
days from the date of the order, prefer an appeal to
the Settlement Commissioner in such form and
manner as may be prescribed :

Provided that the Settlement Commissioner may
entertain the appeal after the expiry of the said period
of thirty days, if he is satisfied that the appellant was
prevented by sufficient cause from filing the appeal in
time.

(2) No appeal shall lie from an order of the Settlement
Officer under Section 5 if the difference between the
amount of public dues as determined by the
Settlement Officer and that as admitted by the
applicant is less than one thousand rupees or such
other amount not exceeding one thousand Rupees as
may be specified by the Central Government in this
behalf by notification in the Official Gazette.
(3) The Settlement Commissioner may, after hearing
the appeal, confirm, vary or reverse the order
appealed from and pass such order in relation thereto
as he deems fit.”

68) A reading of the above provision, it is clear that the

Settlement Commissioner is designated as an appellate authority

(D.B. SAW/183/2014 has been filed in this matter. Please refer the same for further orders)
(Uploaded onon08/04/2026
(Downloaded 08/04/2026atat10:30:30
08:51:31AM)
PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:14231] (55 of 58) [CW-148/2001]

against orders passed by the Managing Officer (or the Settlement

Officer). This statutory right of appeal is conferred upon persons

aggrieved by such orders. The appellate authority itself cannot be

regarded as an aggrieved person. In the context of facts on hand,

the persons aggrieved could be either Managing Officer or the

Central Government and no other person. The Appellate Authority

cannot take suo motto cognizance of appeal in the absence of

properly instituted appeal. There is a prescribed procedure for

filing of appeal, and an appeal is required to be filed within 30

days along with the requisite fee. In the present case, the appeal

was taken up on 07.10.1972, whereas the impugned order is

dated 15.06.1971. The appeal is, therefore, clearly barred by

limitation, as it was filed beyond the statutory period of 30 days.

Accordingly, the cognizance taken by the Settlement

Commissioner, which forms the very foundation of the entire

proceedings, is without jurisdiction.

69) Even assuming, for the sake of argument, that the

Appellate Authority could be an aggrieved party and he could

initiate suo motu proceedings under Section 22 of the Act of 1954

but atleast he could not adjudicate his own appeal. An authority

acting as an aggrieved party cannot simultaneously assume the

role of adjudicator to decide its own grievance. On this ground as

well, the foundational proceedings before the District Magistrate

cum Settlement Commissioner are unsustainable in the eyes of

law.

70) Another aspect of the case is that no appeal was

preferred by the State Government represented by the District

Collector, or by the Municipality against the findings of the

Settlement Commissioner who has held that the entire lands are

evacuee properties and had vested in the compensation pool

under Section 12 of the Act of 1954. In the absence of any such

appeal, the said finding has attained finality. Once such finality has

been reached, a person claiming rights and title under Kalu Khan

by virtue of purchase cannot be permitted to contend that Kalu

Khan had no right to claim the Sanad. Such a contention cannot

form the basis for the revisional authority to set aside the

proceedings. The revisional authority has also failed to take into

consideration the material evidence available on record, which

demonstrates that the entire proceedings initiated by the

Settlement Commissioner are vitiated for want of jurisdiction and

for violation of the fundamental principles of natural justice. The

contentions which were set up at later point of time are not part of

notice of settlement commissioner which is the genesis of present

proceedings.

71) Furthermore, the findings recorded by the revisional

authority that the Sanad suffers from fraud and forgery are based

on the conduct of the Managing Officer and the applicants. The

fact of an immediate sale following the grant of the Sanad, by

itself, does not constitute proof of fraud. At best, it may give rise

to suspicion. However, suspicion cannot replace the proof. Further,

notice of settlement commissioner did not refer fraud and forgery.

Therefore, such conclusions are without any pleadings and legal

basis and contrary to evidence on record. The orders of revisional

authority are also required to be set aside. Consequently, the

entire proceedings of the District Collector cum Settlement

Commissioner as well as the revisional authority are required to

be set aside and the Sanand dated 15.06.1972 is required to be

confirmed.

72) The impugned orders are also liable to be set aside on the

ground of non-joinder of proper and necessary parties. The

necessary parties to the present litigation are Central

Government, Managing Officer (under Act, 1954) and Competent

Officer ( under Act,1951). They are not made parties before the

appellant authority and revisional authority. Without them, the

authorities should not have decided questions relating to

acquisition, sale and proper procedure were being followed or not.

73) A close reading of Sanad, this court finds that there are

certain clerical errors. In the Sanad, the extent of land mentioned

is 159 Bighas 13 Biswas. The revenue records reflect 149 Bighas

08 Biswas. There is also typographical error with regard the date

of the publication of notification in the official gazette acquiring

the land for public purpose being the purpose of relief and

compensation to displaced person. The error with regard to extent

of land is concerned, it was on account of reference of extent of

lands in various communication particularly, the communication

dated 06.11.1965 from the Regional Settlement Commissioner.

Further, the error with regard to date of notification for acquisition

of land was result of confusion resulting from general notifications

issued from time to time under section 12 of Act,1954. Such

errors do not vitiate the grant of Sanad.

74) In the result, both the writ petitions are allowed and the

entire proceedings of the District Collector-cum-Settlement

Commissioner as well as the Revisional authority are set aside

both on merits and jurisdictional aspects. Consequently, the Sanad

dated 15.06.1972 is confirmed however, it shall be confined to 149

Bighas 08 Biswas and notification of acquisition shall be treated as

20.07.1962.

75) In the circumstances, no order as to costs.

76) Pending interlocutory applications, if any, shall stand

disposed of.

(MUNNURI LAXMAN),J

NK/-

(D.B. SAW/183/2014 has been filed in this matter. Please refer the same for further orders)
(Uploaded onon08/04/2026
(Downloaded 08/04/2026atat10:30:30
08:51:31AM)
PM)

Source link

Welcome to Airr News

Welcome to Airr News

Forever

Recommended

1-Year

1-Month

Welcome to Airr News

Forever

Recommended

1-Year

1-Month

Welcome to Airr News

Ibrahim Khan And Ors vs Chief Steel.Commis.Bikaner And Ors on 7 April, 2026

Rajasthan High Court – Jodhpur