CWP No.3165 of 1987 (O&M) [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No.3165 of 1987 (O&M) Date of Decision:14.11.2011 Sifte Hasan son of Sultan Hasan, resident of Village Zabti Chhapra, Tehsil & Distt. Karnal. ... Petitioner Versus Financial Commissioner Revenue & Secretary to Government Haryana, Rehabilitation Department, Chandigarh, with powers of Central Government under Section 16 of the Administration of Evacuee Property Act and another. ... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN Present:Mr. Dinesh Ghai, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. O.P. Sharma, Addl. AG, Haryana. ***** 1.Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? NO 2.To be referred to the reporters or not? YES 3.Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest? YES K. KANNAN, J. (Oral) 1 The writ petition challenges the order passed by the Financial Commissioner on 12.05.1987 declining the petitioner's claim for restoration of a property under Section 16 of the Administration of Evacuee Property Act on the ground that he had only temporarily migrated to Utter Pradesh at the time of partition and the property was not an evacuee property to be liable for distribution in the manner referred to under the provisions of the Administration of Evacuee Property Act. The Financial Commissioner held that the petitioners were really CWP No.3165 of 1987 (O&M) [2] possessing the land in village Zabti Chhapara and Nabiabad but since the land has been disposed of by the Government, the restoration cannot be considered especially in view of the abrogation of Section 20A of the Act. 2. I hold the finding to be erroneous. In all cases where a property is claimed by any evacuee or any other person claiming to be an heir of evacuee. If the property had been wrongly assumed as an evacuee property, the Government cannot be said to have lost its power for restoration of such property. If the petitioner was found to be the owner and if the Financial Commissioner had also observed that the petitioner's case was genuine, in my view that itself ought to have prevailed on his decision to order restoration. Even if it were to be contended that Section 16 itself will avail only to either an evacuee or evacuee property so called and the petitioner was never an evacuee, he having not migrated to Pakistan, then I would hold that justice requires that the property is restored to him, which this Court will exercise in its power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 3. The counsel for the petitioner states that he is interested in retaining only the property in Zabti Chhapara and the property, which he owned at Nabiabad need not be recalled and the same could be allowed to be in the hands of the allottee. I see the fairness of the claim of the petitioner and would modify the impugned order only insofar as it upholds the contention of the petitioner in relation to the property in rect. no.26 killa no.4 to 8, rect. no.39 killa no.1, 2, 9, 10, 12 & 19/2, and rect. no.40 killa no.6, 7 & 15/1 situated in village Zabti Chhapara. The claim in relation to the property situated in Nabiabad is disallowed since the petitioner himself is not pressing his relief as regards the same. CWP No.3165 of 1987 (O&M) [3] 4. The writ petition is allowed with the above directions. The necessary formalities for making the mutations or preparing the Registry in the manner required under law shall be carried out by the State as expeditiously as possible, preferably, within a period of 12 weeks from the date of receipt of copy of the order. NOVEMBER 14, 2011 ( K. KANNAN ) Rajan JUDGE