LPA No.808 of 1993 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh. LPA No.808 of 1993 (O&M) Date of Decision: 09.02.2010 Khushi Mohammed and another ....Appellants. Versus Assistant Custodian General, Punjab and others ....Respondents. Coram:- Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adarsh Kumar Goel Hon'ble Mr. Justice Alok Singh Present: Mr. Satish Goyal, Advocate for the appellants. Mr. Jaswinder Singh, DAG, Punjab for the respondents. ... Alok Singh, J. 1. Present appeal has been filed challenging the judgement dated 31.5.1993 passed by the learned Single Judge, whereby Civil Writ Petition No.2754 of 1987, challenging order of the custodian, came to be dismissed. 2. Brief facts of the present case are that one Ritu Shah was a big landlord and was owner of the property in question. Ritu Shah had two sons, namely, Shafi Mohammed and Khushi Mohammed. Petitioner No.1 - Khushi Mohammed was declared owner of half of the property, while half of the property of Ritu Shah was declared as evacuee property on the ground that Ritu Shah died before partition and his entire property was succeeded by petitioner No.1 - Khushi Mohammed and his brother Shafi Mohammed. However, on partition, Shafi Mohammed migrated to LPA No.808 of 1993 2 Pakistan. Hence, his share was declared as evacuee property. Order of the custodian was challenged by petitioner No.1 - Khushi Mohammed on the ground that Ritu Shah was alive at the time of partition and died after the partition. Hence, at the time of partition, Shafi Mohammed was having absolutely no share in the property of Ritu Shah and after the death of Ritu Shah, petitioner No.1 - Khushi Mohammed being the sole alive legal heir in India, inherited entire property and hence, entire property ought to have been released in favour of petitioner No.1 - Khushi Mohammed. 3. The appropriate authority came to the conclusion that Ritu Shah died in India before partition and his property devolved upon his two sons, namely, Khushi Mohammed and Shafi Mohammed. At the time of partition, Shafi Mohammed, son of Ritu Shah, migrated to Pakistan. Hence, the share inherited by Shafi Mohammed was declared as evacuee property. Feeling aggrieved by the order passed by the appropriate authority, the petitioner filed writ petition, which was dismissed by the impugned judgement. 4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 5. Learned counsel for the appellants vehemently argued that Ritu Shah was very well alive at the time of partition and died after partition in India. Hence, findings recorded by the appropriate authority that Ritu Shah had died prior to the partition, is perverse and incorrect. 6. First of all, scope of Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, while dealing with the judgements and orders passed by the Courts below/Tribunals, is limited. This Court while exercising power under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, ordinarily does not interfere LPA No.808 of 1993 3 with the finding of fact recorded by the Courts below/Tribunals. Of course, this Court can interfere with the finding of fact recorded by the Subordinate Courts/Tribunals when this Court comes to the conclusion that the Courts below/Tribunals have committed manifest error of law and the finding recorded by it is absolutely perverse. However, if two views are possible, even then this Court does not interfere. 7. While hearing the Letters Patent Appeal against the judgement of the learned Single Judge exercising the power and Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, power of this Court becomes more narrower and limited. Findings recorded by the Subordinate Courts/Tribunals, as concurred by the learned Single Judge, cannot be interfered with in Letters Patent Appeal, unless some substantial and very glaring mistake is pointed out. 8. The learned Single Judge in the impugned judgement has observed as under: - “While considering the claim of the petitioners, the appropriate authority has categorically found that the petitioners have themselves stated in para 2 of the petitioner filed by them that “Shri Ritu Shah died in India before partition of the country and now at this stage they cannot be allowed to say that he had died after partition and his other son, Shafi Mohd. could not inherit the land of his deceased father. No documentary or other evidence has been brought by the petitioners on record that these two persons had never migrated to Pakistan and died in India. On the contrary, the police verification categorically states that these persons had migrated to Pakistan and had LPA No.808 of 1993 4 settled in Village Ranjit-da-kot.” 9. Learned counsel for the appellants when confronted with above finding of the learned Single Judge, argued that although, it has been stated by the petitioner in paragraph 2 before the appropriate authority that Ritu Shah had died in India before partition of the country, however, that statement of the petitioner is not a conclusive admission and it has to be proved before declaring the property as evacuee property that Ritu Shah died before partition, and in the absence of any proof or evidence produced before the authorities, no property can be declared as evacuee property. While relying upon the statement made in paragraph 2 of the petition, we do not agree with the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the appellants. It is settled principle of law that admission is best evidence which can be relied against the person making admission, unless and until the person making admission explains under what circumstances wrong statement was given/recorded. In the present case, appellants has not clarified or explained that under wrong impression, the said statement was recorded. 10. In view of the above, we do not find any ground to interfere with the view taken by the learned Single Judge. 11. The appeal is, accordingly, dismissed. ( Alok Singh ) Judge ( Adarsh Kumar Goel ) Judge 09.02.2010 sk.