1 WP2456.99.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
WRIT PETITION NO. 2456 OF 1999
Dayaram Bhuromal Aswani
(since deceased thr. L.Rs)
Ashish Ramchandra Aswani,
aged about 9 years, Occ. Student,
R/o. Sindhusagar Society, Plot No.3,
Clock Town, Nagpur ...... PETITIONER
...VERSUS...
1] Mohamed Aslam,
Deputy Secretary and also Chief
Settlement Commissioner, Ministry
of Home Affairs, Rehabilitation Division,
Jaisalmer House, Mansing Road,
New Delhi
2] Union of India, through the Secretary,
Ministry of Home Affairs, Rehabilitation Division,
Jaisalmer House, Mansing Road,
New Delhi
3] Settlement Commissioner for
Compensation Pool Properties Cum
Custodian of Evacue Properties,
3rd Floor, Konkan Bhavan, New Bombay.
4] The State of Maharashtra, through the
Secretary, Rehabilitation, Revenue and
Forest Department, Mantralaya,
Mumbai ............ RESPONDENTS
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ms. Komal Mundle, counsel for petitioner
None for Respondents.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM: R. K. DESHPANDE, AND
MANISH PITALE, JJ.
th
DATE : 18 AUGUST 2017
::: Uploaded on - 22/08/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 23/08/2017 01:59:50 :::
2 WP2456.99.odt
JUDGMENT (Per Pitale, J.)
1] This writ petition was filed by the predecessor of the present petitioner claiming that the predecessor i.e. Dayaram Aswani and his two brothers - Hiranand and Gellmal migrated to India from West Pakisthan as a result of partition of the country in the year 1947. It is claimed that there were certain lands belonging to the family, which were abandoned as a result of partition and migration and that, therefore, the family had a claim under the Claims Act, 1950 and also the claim under [The] Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954 and Rules framed therein. The petitioner further relies upon an order dated 16.04.1991 passed by the Assistant Settlement Officer under the provisions of the aforesaid Act, holding that the brother Gellumal was entitled to 1/3rd share of the compensation pool. It is further stated that by an order dated 30.12.1986 passed by the Settlement Commissioner, it was held that the other brother Hiranand was entitled to the benefit of Rule 19(2)(a), which provides that the members of the family would be granted compensation in equal shares. The predecessor of the petitioner i.e. Dayaram relied upon ::: Uploaded on - 22/08/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 23/08/2017 01:59:50 ::: 3 WP2456.99.odt the will dated 30.01.1959 executed by his brother Hiranand whereby the share of agricultural lands to which Hiranand was entitled were bequeathed to the said Dayaram. The said will was probated by an order dated 05.11.1993 passed in Probate Application No. 20 of 1993, which is also placed on record with this writ petition.
2] The said Dayaram, on the basis of the order dated 30.12.1986 passed in favour of Hiranand, as also the order dated 05.11.1993 granting probate of the will dated 30.01.1959, approached the respondents for grant of share of 1/3rd to which the said Hiranand was entitled under the provisions of the said Act and the Rules. Such application was made by Dayaram on 25.05.1995 and reminders were sent to respondent No.1. Despite the claim made by Dayaram and the reminders submitted before the respondent No.1, there was no order passed on the claim made by Dayaram. In this writ petition, the said Dayaram, predecessor of the present petitioner, has prayed for direction to the respondents to grant appropriate benefit under Rules 19(2)(a) of the aforesaid Act. ::: Uploaded on - 22/08/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 23/08/2017 01:59:50 :::
4 WP2456.99.odt
3] On 14.07.2017, this Court had passed the
following order.
"It is surprising that till this date the Union of India has not filed any return in the matter. Shri Aurangabadkar, the learned A.S.G.I. seeks two weeks time in this matter for filing return and argument. He submits that he is not having any papers and he will have to collect it and file the return. 1] Though the matter is of year 1999, we grant four weeks time by way of last chance to the respondents. If no return is filed or affidavit is filed in respect of this petition, the Court shall not accept any reply or return filed subsequent to the said date. 2] Put up this matter after four weeks."
4] Despite the fact that four weeks time was granted as a last chance to the respondents to file return on affidavit in this writ petition, there is no such return filed and none has appeared for the respondents.
5] In these circumstances, we deem it fit to direct the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 to consider the claim of the petitioner in the light of the documents referred to above and to pass appropriate order within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the copy of this order. All questions are left open and the writ petition is disposed of in above terms.
JUDGE JUDGE
Rvjalit
::: Uploaded on - 22/08/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 23/08/2017 01:59:50 :::