Summary
The Supreme Court remitted two writ petitions concerning claims to patta rights by alleged pre-partition tenants for determination by the High Court. Its earlier decision in Ramesh Parsram Malani had not examined those tenant claims; it had clarified that transfer to the State did not remove the land from the compensation pool. Other appellants, who had not pursued proceedings to establish their rights, were left free to seek available remedies. No tenancy or patta entitlement was finally declared.
Issues
- Whether the alleged pre-partition tenants’ claims required adjudication despite the earlier decision concerning transfer of compensation-pool land to the State.
Held
- The earlier Ramesh Parsram Malani judgment did not examine the alleged pre-partition tenants’ claims. It held that transferred land remained in the compensation pool for settlement of displaced persons before use for other purposes. (¶¶ 2, 3, 4)
- The appellants in the two identified writ petitions had challenged the allotment and claimed patta rights as pre-partition tenants; those petitions required decision according to law. Other appellants had sought only interim possession protection or had not invoked a competent forum to establish their rights. (¶¶ 5, 6, 7, 8)
Result
Appeals disposed of. High Court order of 12 February 2016 set aside in Writ Petition Nos.29274 and 29436 of 2014, which were remitted for decision according to law. Other appellants granted liberty to invoke available jurisdiction for redress.