http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 6  

PETITIONER: BASANT RAM

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: UNION OF INDIA

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 24/01/1962

BENCH: WANCHOO, K.N. BENCH: WANCHOO, K.N. GAJENDRAGADKAR, P.B.

CITATION:  1962 AIR  994            1962 SCR  Supl. (2) 733  CITATOR INFO :  F          1983 SC 259  (22)  RF         1984 SC 463  (9)

ACT:      Evacuee  Property-Inclusion  in  compensation pool-Effect-Power    of     Central    Government- Administration  of   Evacuee  Property   (Central) Rules,  r.   14  (6)-Administration   of   Evacuee Property   Act,    1950-The    displace    persons (Compensation and  Rehabilitation) Act,  (XLIV  of 1954), ss. 12, 14, 16 and 19.

HEADNOTE:      The appellants migrated to India in 1947 from West Pakistan.  To begin  with,  they  were  given temporary allotment  of land  in two  villages. In 1949, land was allotted to them on quasi-permanent basis, and they have remained in possession of the same eversince.  Originally, land  was  classified into two kinds: urban and agricultural land. Later on, a  third classification  was introduced, known as sub-urban  land. The two villages in which land was allotted  to the  appellants were not included in the  notification  with  respect  to  sub-urban land.  In   February,  1952,   the   Director   of Rehabilitation passed  and order  declaring  those villages as 734 sub-urban land.  The result  of the order was that the allotment  made to  the appellants  was to  be reduced. The  appellants went  in revision  to the Custodian General,  and their  revision  petitions were dismissed on the ground that the view of Rule 14(6)(iii)(d) of  the Rule  it was  open   to  the Central Government  by a  special order  to direct cancellation or variation of the allotment made in favour  of   the  appellants,   and  the   Central Government has on the representation of the Punjab Government agreed  to declare  the two villages in question as  sub-urban by  its order dated October 11, 1955.  The appellants filed a writ petition in the High  Court but  that was dismissed summarily.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 6  

The have  come in  appeal to this Court by special leave. ^      Held, that when the notification of March 24, 1955, was  made under  s. 12 of the placed Persons (Compensation and  Rehabilitation) Act,  1954, the evacuee property  in those  villages ceased  to be evacuee  property   and  became   a  part  of  the compensation pool.  That property  could  only  be dealt with under the Act of 1954. If any variation or cancellation  of allotment  was to he made that could be  done only  under the provisions of s. 19 of Act  of 1954.  There was  no power  left in the Central Government to act under Rule 14(6)(iii)(d) of the  Rules framed  under the  Administration of Evacuee Property  Act, 1950  with respect  to that land after the notification of March 24, 1955.      Balmukand v. The State of Punjab, I.L.R. 1957 Punjab 712  and Major  Gopal Singh v. Custodian of Evacuee Property, A.I.R. 1961 S.C. 1320, followed.

JUDGMENT:      CIVIL, APPELLATE  JURISDICTION: Civil  Appeal No. 766 of 1957.      Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated  January 31, 1966, of the, Punjab High Court in Civil Writ Petition No. 30 of 1956.      R. S. Narula, for the appellants.      B.  K.  Khanna  and  P.  D.  Menon,  for  the respondents.      S. L. Pandhi, for the interveners.      1962. January  24. The  Judgment of the Court was delivered by      WANCHOO, J.-This  is  an  appeal  by  special leave against the order of the Punjab High Court 735 summarily  rejecting   a  petition  filed  by  the appellants. under  Art. 226  of the  Constitution. The brief facts necessary for present purposes are there. The  appellants migrated  in 1947 from what is now  West Pakistan and settled in two villages, viz.,  Sheikhapind  and  Kotla.  They  were  given temporary allotment  of agricultural  land in  the two  villages  under  the  East  Punjab  Evacuees’ (Administration of Property) Act, (No.XIV of 1947) then in  force. Thereafter a scheme was formulated in   1948   for   quasi-permanent   allotment   of agricultural  land  to  owners  of  land  in  West Pakistan   after    the   East   Punjab   Refugees (Registration of  Claims) Act,  (No.VIII of  1948) was enacted.  In July  1949,  a  notification  was issued stating the condition under which allotment of agricultural  land would  be made  to displaced person from  West  Pakistan.  This  allotment  was quasi-permanent in the sense that it was to remain in force  so long as the land was to remain vested in the Custodian of Evacuee Property. In pursuance of this notification, land was allotted in the two villages  to  the  appellants  on  quasi-permanent basis in  1949 and the appellants have remained in possession thereof  eversince. Originally land was classified into  two kinds,  namely, (i) urban and (ii) agricultural  land. Later in 1949, however, a

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 6  

third Classification,  namely sub-urban  was  also introduced   in    practice   with    respect   to agricultural land  in the  neighborhood of certain towns and a notification seems to have been issued with respect  to that specifying the villages land in which  was considered  to be  a sub-urban (vide Chap.  V  of  Land  Settlement  Manual  by  Tarlok Singh). But  the two  villages in  which land  was allotted to  the appellants  were not  included in the notification with respect to sub-urban land.      In  August  1950  after  the  quasi-permanent allotment in favour of the appellants had been 736 made,  the   Revenue  Assistant   (Rehabilitation) Jullundur proposed  that these two villages should also be  classified as  sub-urban, the consequence of which  would have  been to  reduce the  area of land  given   to  the   allottees   therein.   The appellants objected before the Director General of Rehabilitation to  the villages  being  graded  as sub-urban The Director General called for a report from the  Revenue Assistant  (Rehabilitation)  and eventually passed  an order  on January  12,  1951 that it  was not  desirable at that stage to cause any disturbance  to the  allotments made  in these two villages  by declaring them sub-urban and that the status  quo should  continue. This however did not end  the matter  and  in  February,  1952  the Director of  Rehabilitation  passed  an  order  in effect declaring  these villages as sub-urban with the  result   that  the   allotment  made  to  the appellants would  have  to  be  reduced.  It  also appears that  some order was passed in April, 1952 on paper  allotting the  extra land which would be released from  the allotment  of the appellants to other persons  who have appeared as interveners in this appeals.  But this  order remained  merely on paper and  has not  been carried  out so far. When the appellants  came  to  know  of  the  order  of February 29,  1952, they  filed a  revision before the  Custodian  General  for  setting  aside  that order. The  revision came  up  before  the  Deputy Custodian General  for hearing in January 1956. By then however  certain changes  in the  law and the Rules  had   been  made.  Firstly,  there  was  an amendment in  r. 14  (8) of  the Administration of Evacuee property  (Central) Rules framed under the Administration of  Evacuee property  Act, (Central Act XXXI  of 1950). Further, the Displaced persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, Central Act XLIV of 1954, (hereinafter referred to as the Act) had been  passed. Under  the amendment  to  r.  14 power was  given for  cancellation or variation of any 737 allotment of  rural evacuee  property on  a quasi- permanent basis,  where the  allotment was  to  be cancelled or varied in accordance with the general or special  order of  the Central  Government.  It appears that in the meantime correspondence passed between the  Punjab  Government  and  the  Central Government and  an order  under the  amended r. 14 (6) (iii)  (d) was  obtained on  October  11,1955. Therefore, when  the revision  came up  before the Deputy Custodian  General he  held that in view of

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 6  

r. 14  (6) (iii)  (d) of  the Rules it was open to the Central  Government by special order to direct cancellation or variation of the allotment made in this case in favour of the appellants and that the Central Government  had on  the representation  of the Punjab  Government agreed to declare these two villages as  sub-urban by  its order dated October 11, 1955;  therefore he  held  that  whatever  was being done after October 11, 1955 was in pursuance of  the   order  of  the  Central  Government.  He therefore held that the impugned order of February 29, 1952, even if it was revisable, no longer held the field  and action  was to  be taken  in future under the  order of  the Central Government passed on October  11, 1955. Therefore, the revisions had become infructuous and he dismissed them. Then followed  the writ petition by the appellants in the  Punjab High  Court,  which  was  dismissed summarily. As leave was refused by the High Court, the appellants  applied for  special leave to this Court, which  was granted;  and that  is  how  the matter has come up before us.      The  main   contention  on   behalf  of   the appellants before us is that after the coming into force of  the Act  and the notification made there under on  March 24,  1955 under  s. 12,  the  land allotted to  the appellants  in the  two  villages ceased to  because property and became part of the compensation pool created thereunder and therefore the Central 738 Government had  no power  left to  act  under  the Central Act  XXXI of  1950 and  the  Rules  framed thereunder. In  consequence the  order passed,  by the Central  Government on October 11, 1955 on the basis  of   which  the  Deputy  Custodian  General rejected the revision petitions filed on behalf of the appellants  was not  within the  competence of the Central  Government and  no  action  could  be taken by  virtue of  that order  declaring the two villages as  sub-urban. Therefore  it was not open to the  authorities under  the Central Act XXXI of 1950 to  take any action under that order with the object of  varying the allotment made in favour of the appellants  by reducing  the area  allotted to them. It  is further  urged that  whether  further action has  to be  taken  after  the  notification dated March  24, 1955-can  only be taken under the Act and  that no  such action  has  in  fact  been taken,      We are of opinion that there is force in this contention of  the appellants and it must prevail. Section 12(1)  of the  Act provides  that "if  the Central  Government  is  of  opinion  that  it  is necessary to  acquire any  evacuee property  for a public purpose, being a purpose connected with the relief and  rehabilitation of  displaced  persons, including payment of compensation to such persons, the Central  Government may  at any  time  acquire such  evacuee   property  by   publishing  in  the Official Gazette a notification to the effect that the Central  Government has  decided to  a acquire such  evacuee   property  in   pursuance  of  this section". Sub-section  (2) then  provides that "on the  publication  of  a  notification  under  sub-

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 6  

section (1),  the right, title and interest of any evacuee in  the evacuee  property specified in the notification shall........be  extinguished and the evacuee property  shall  vest  absolutely  in  the Central government  free from  all  encumbrances". Sub-section (4) provides that all evacuee property acquired under this section shall form part of the 739 compensation pool.  Section 14  provides  for  the constitution of  a compensation  pool. Section  16 gives powers  to the  Central Government  for  the management of the compensation pool, including the appointment of  such officers  as it  may deem fit (referred to as managing officers) or constitution of such  authority or  corporation, as it may deem fit  (referred   to  as   managing  corporations). Section 17  provides  for  functions  of  managing officers and  managing corporations.  Section  19, which is important, provides that "notwithstanding anything contained  in any  contract or  any other law for the time being in force but subject to any rules  that  may  be  made  under  this  Act,  the managing  officer   or  managing  corporation  may cancel any  allotment or  terminate any  leases or amend the  terms of  any lease  or allotment under which any evacuee property acquired under this Act is held  of occupied  by a  person,  whether  such allotment or  leases was  granted before  or after the commencement  of this  Act". Rules  have  been framed under  the Act specifying the circumstances under which  a  managing  officer  or  a  managing corporation may cancel an allotment or terminate a lease or  vary the  terms of  any  such  lease  or allotment (see  r. 102). It is not in dispute that the evacuee  property in  these two  villages  was notified under  s.12 of the Act on March 24, 1955. The consequence  of that  notification is that all rights. title  and interest  of the evacuee in the property ceased  with the result that the property no  longer   remained   evacuee   property.   Once therefore  the   property  ceased  to  be  evacuee property it  can  not  be  dealt  with  under  the Central Act  No. XXXI  of 1950 or the Rules framed thereunder. The  property in  these  two  villages became part  of the  compensation pool  after  the notification of  March 24,  1955 and could be deal with under  the provisions  of  the  Act  and  any variation  or   cancellation  of   any  lease   or allotment thereafter could only be made under s.19 740 of the  Act. This is the position which emerges on a consideration  section 12,  14, 16 and 19 of the Act after the notification under s. 12(1) was made with respect  to the evacuee property in these two villages on  March 24,  1955. This  view has  been taken by the Punjab High Court in Balmukand v. The Punjab  State.   The  same   view  has  also  been expressed by  this Court  in Major  Gopal Singh v. Custodian, Evacuee  Property, where  it  was  held that from  the date  of the  notification under s. 12, the  Custodian by  reasons of the divesting of the property  becomes functus officio with respect to it  and cannot rectify any error made by him in the  past   in  the   matter  of  cancellation  of allotment. It  follows  therefore  that  when  the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 6  

notification of  March 24,  1955 was  made and the evacuee property  in these  two villages ceased to be  evacuee   property  and  became  part  of  the compensation pool it could only be deal with under the Act  and if  any variation  or cancellation of allotment was  to be  made it  could only  be done under the provisions of s. 19 of the Act and there was no power left in the Central Government to act under r.  14(6)(iii)(d) of  the Rules framed under the Central  Act XXXI of 1950 with respect to this land after  the notification  of March  24,  1955. The order  of  the  Deputy  Custodian  General  of January 1956  shows that  further proceedings with respect to  this land  are contemplated  under the order of  October 11,  1955 passed  by the Central Government under r. 14(6)(iii)(d). As however that order was  passed after  March 24,  1955, when the power of  the Central  Government to act under the Central Act XXXI of 1950 had ceased on the evacuee property in  these two  villages becoming  part of the compensation  pool, that  order  must  be  set aside and  no further  proceedings  can  be  taken under  that   order.  We  order  accordingly.  The appellants will get their costs. 741 We should  however like  to make  it clear that we express no  opinion on the controversy between the appellants and  the interveners  who are  left  to such remedies  as may  be available  to them under the law.