1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR O R D E R S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.1063/08 (Rajdeo Singh Vs. State of Raj. & Ors.) Date of order : 14.02.2008 P R E S E N T HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GOPAL KRISHAN VYAS Mr. H.K. Jain, for the petitioner. Admittedly, this writ petition has been filed by the person who is not displaced person claiming his right under the Displaced Persons (Compensation & Rehabilitation) Act, 1954 (hereafter, for short “the Act of 1954”). The definition of 'displaced person' is provided under Section 2 (b) of the Act of 1954, which reads as under : “2(b) “displaced person” means any person who, on account of the setting up of the Dominions of India and Pakistan, or on account of civil disturbances or the fear of such disturbances in any area now forming part of West Pakistan, has, after the first day of March, 1947, left, or been displaced from, his place or residence 2 in such area and who has been subsequently residing in India, and includes any person who is resident in any place nor forming part of India and who for that reason is unable or has been rendered unable to manage, supervise or control any immovable property belonging to him in West Pakistan, and also includes the successors-in-interest of any such person;” The petitioner knowingly well that he is not displaced person has preferred this writ petition seeking directions to the respondent No.3 to decide his application filed under Section 19(2) of the Act of 1954 in accordance with law. In the alternative, it is prayed that if the proceedings on the application of the petitioner has been dropped, then the respondent No.2 may be directed to restore the application to its original number and decide the same on merits under the Act of 1954. No documentary proof has been filed by the petitioner except order dated 4.10.2001 Annexure-2, which is said to be passed upon application filed by the brother of petitioner Biramdeo Singh and Govind Singh in a programme known as 'Prashasan Gao ki or' in favour of respondent Nos. 5 and 9. According to the petitioner, the land in 3 question upon which he is said to be in possession, was belonging to one Jeevan Son of Meerja, who went to Pakistan after partition. According to the petitioner, the land was recorded as the property of Custodian Department in the name of President of India. According to the petitioner he as well as respondent Nos. 5 to 9 are in cultivatory possession of the said land, therefore, relief prayed for may be granted. In this writ petition, without filing any documentary evidence with regard to his possession or any application filed by him, it is not possible for this Court to ascertain correct position. However, the fact which is emerging from the averments made in the writ petition is that admittedly the petitioner is not displaced person as defined under the Act of 1954 and he has made an attempt to claim his right on the ground that application filed by his brothers under Section 19 (2) of the Act is pending since 1994 and respondents are not deciding the said application on the ground that the Act of 1954 was repealed in the year 2005. I am not unable to understand how this fact is ascertained that his application filed under Section 19 (2) of the Act is not decided on the ground that the Act of 1954 is repealed in the year 2005 because Annexure-2 does not speak whether the said proceedings were pending in connection with Section 19 (2) of the Act of 1954. 4 According to the petitioner himself, the application under Section 19 (2) of the Act was filed by his brother in the year 1994 stating therein that they are in cultivatory possession of the land which was belonging to one Jeevan S/o Meerja, who went to Pakistan. The petitioner has founded his case on a strange ground that there is complete inaction on the part of respondent No.3 because the respondents are not deciding the application of the petitioner and their approach of dropping the proceedings under the Act of 1954 on the ground that the Act of 1954 has been repealed by the Act of 2005 is manifestly erroneous, illegal and it is passed against the settled principles of law. By raising this ground, the petitioner's plea is to treat his case at par with the case decided by this Court vide order dated 20.12.2007 passed in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.1414/2006 (Jalam Singh Vs. District Collector Cum Chief Settlement Commissioner & Ors.). While calling the record of S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.1414/2006, I have perused the contents of said writ petition. The facts of the said writ petition are altogether different. In the said writ 5 petition, the order dated 5.12.2005 passed by Settlement Officer (rehabilitation), SDM, Sriganganagar was under challenge whereby the said authority rejected the claim of the petitioner of that writ petition on the ground that in view of repeal of the Act of 1954 by the Displaced Person Claims and Other Laws Repeal Act, 2005 (38 of 2005) and in absence of the saving clause therein, the proceedings cannot be continued. Here in this case, except communication Annexure-2 filed by the petitioner's brother no other documentary evidence has been filed with regard to pendency of any matter before the concerned authority nor any document filed on record with regard to possession of the petitioner as well as respondent Nos. 5 to 9 upon the land. Further, the petitioner himself has made assertion in the writ petition that he does not have any details of the case, which is said to be pending upon his initiation. Thus, it is clear that without any documentary evidence and any order, the petitioner has presumed that his application has been decided on the ground that the Act of 1954 has been repealed by the Act of 2005. Upon perusal of Annexure-2, it will reveal that in the said proceedings, neither the petitioner was party nor those proceedings were initiated under Section 19 (2) of the Act of 1954. 6 Therefore, the writ petition involves disputed question of fact with regard to filing of any proceedings in the year 1994 under section 19 (2) of the Act of 1954 by the petitioner. Hence, the petitioner cannot claim any right at par with the case of Jalam Singh (supra) decided by this Court on 20.12.2007 or under the Act of 1954. There is no force in the writ petition. Accordingly, the same is dismissed. (GOPAL KRISHAN VYAS), J. arun