Wit hout any basis and the

aboveeaid construction isn

e xistence since
long and no udditI‹» «»u„ „„, „„,

who is ln oceupat ion ‹a f the same since 1 9iO ;„

# U n galow no.77, Jhoke holy, yq r „¿„ „„ „ ,

*PPe r * tha P ope r enquiry way Mob made by the Esta

€€l Ce z, aa1andha z, vh1 Ie passing t he 1mpuqned order,
vh1ch has zesu1ted 1nto mt» caz r1aq
e of § ust1ce ,
6.That it is mentioned in the
impugned order that

opportun1t Yes were given to the appe1

the 1aMt dfld ‹› i.has

who were r ep resen t ed by Sh . B. it.

_• ,

Shd fmd , fierozepur. Intact, no oppoz tuni ty

Advoca te,

was u f to . he appel tant to plead his cd se ma

s 9 i ver, . *. . ..
Advocate died many years ago and
Smt.Rupinder Preet

Bal, Advocate was not engaged by the appellant and

ds such the entire facts submittedMn the impugned

order are fat se and ei th out any basis . The det ai l of t he

events mentioned in the impugned order are paIpaf%

wrong and false. It is worthwhile to mention that

there is no i nt erl ocut ory order on t he f i 1e , w h i :: h

Port i by the cont ention the I ent i re p i oce‹.‹i . ; ,‹y

false and against the provision of the la • . the

procedure is handmade of the justice and a procedure

‹ould have been followed and the provisions as well

a.s ules would have bnen followed, the result of

the case ou Id have been di f ferent

lat the Bungs I or no. 7 7, Jhoke, Raod, 1“ero zepu r Ca r. I r

s an evocuee property be longing to th e Nu s Ill!›: , h')3 G

perty eas vested ui th depa rtment of custodian and

was di sposed off according to the provi si on s ‹›

lace Persons & Rehabilitation Act of 1954 and

i.