http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 4  

PETITIONER: ESTATES DEVELOPMENT LTD.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 22/09/1969

BENCH: RAMASWAMI, V. BENCH: RAMASWAMI, V. SHAH, J.C. GROVER, A.N.

CITATION:  1970 AIR 1978            1970 SCR  (2) 534  1969 SCC  (3)  39  CITATOR INFO :  D          1971 SC 771  (6)

ACT:     Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation)  Act (44    of  1954),  s.  24(2)---Order  of  Cheif   Settlement Commissioner--Conditions precedent for making.

HEADNOTE:     By  a  sale  deed  executed on  November  24,  1944  the appellant company purchased certain land located in an  area now part of West Pakistan. After the partition of India, the company,  on  the  basis  of a  registered  sale  deed,  was allotted  certain land in Kapurthala in 1950 in lieu of  the land  abandoned  in  Pakistan.   On a  report  made  by  the Managing  Officer,  Respondeat  No. 3  on  August  30,  1960 recommending  cancellation of the allotment of land  to  the company and after hearing the company, the chief  Settlement Commissioner  rejected the registered sale deed and came  to the conclusion that at the time of partition the company did not own any land in Pakistan nor was it in occupation of any such  land. Therefore by his order dated February 27,  1961, he set aside the permanent rights acquired by the company. HELD: The order of the Chief Settlement  Commissioner   must be  quashed  on the ground that there is no finding  of  the Chief Settlement Commissioner that the company had  obtained allotment   of   the  land  "by  means   of   fraud,   false representation  or concealment of any material fact"  within the  meaning  of s. 24(2) of the Act.  It is true  that  the Chief  Settlement Commissioner had recorded a  finding  that the company had not proved its title to any land in the area now  part  of Pakistan and the allotment  was  "undeserved". But  this is not tantamount to a finding that the  allotment had  been  obtained by a false representation  or  fraud  or concealment  of  material  facts.   Such  a  finding  is   a condition precedent for faking action under s. 24(2) of  the Act.  The condition imposed by the section is mandatory  and in  the  absence of any such finding  the  Chief  Settlement Commissioner  had  no jurisdiction to cancel  the  allotment made to the company under s. 24(2) of the Act. [537 A--D]

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 4  

JUDGMENT: CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1576 of 1966.     Appeal  from the judgment and ordered dated October  26. 1965  of the Punjab High Court in Letters Patent Appeal  No. 174 of 1964.     Bishan  Narain,  S.K.  Mehta and  K.L.  Mehta,  for  the appellant. Harbans Singh and R.N. Sachthey, for the respondents. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by     Ramaswami,  J.   In  the  month  of  August,  1942   the appellant  company  (hereinafter  called  the  Company)  was incorporated  -with  its registered office in  the  city  of Jullundur dealing in sale 535 and purchase of land as its substantial business.  By a sale deed executed on November 24, 1944 the company purchased 646 karnals,  9 marlas of land  from Harjit Singh  for   a   sum of Rs. 32,326/-.  The land was located in village  Monanpura of  District Sheikupura, now in West Pakistan.  Out  of  the consideration  for the sale, a sum of Rs. 9,000/’- was  left with the company for payment to the previous mortgagees  and the balance of the money was paid to Harjit Singh before the Sub-Registrar at the time of registration.  On the basis  of the  registered  sale  deed  the  company  was  allotted  27 standard  acres  and 11 1/2 units of  land  village  Bohani, Tehsil Phagwara District Kapurthala in the year 1950 in lieu of the land abandoned in Pakistan.  A sanad no. K2/4/8 dated March  9, 1950 was issued in favour of the  company.   There was  consolidation  of holdings in village Bohani and  as  a result  of  consolidation the area allotted to  the  company came  to  23 kanals and 5 marlas.  Out of this  the  company sold  9-1/2 kanals to Mohan Singh, a Jar of  village  Bohani for Rs. 1900.00 by registered sale deed dated May 22,  1956. Another  portion  of 220 kanals and 15 marlas  was  sold  on September 12, 1958 for Rs. 10,012/- to one Mehnga Singh  and his sons.  It was later discovered that the company had been allotted  less  area of land than it was entitled  to  as  a result  of  consolidation operations and so.  an  additional area  of  24 kanals was allotted to the company  in  village Bohani  to make up the deficiency.  On August 30,  1960  the Managing Officer, respondent no. 3, made a report,  Annexure C,  to the Chief Settlement Commissioner, Respondent  no.  2 recommending  cancellation of the allotment of land  to  the company  and consequently the grant of permanent  rights  to it.    The  company  was  heard  by  the  Chief   Settlement Commissioner    and   thereafter   the   Chief    Settlement Commissioner  rejected the registered sale deed and  balance sheets and relying on the jamabandi, annexure X, came to the conclusion that at the time of partition the company did not own  any, land in Pakistan nor was it in occupation  of  any such land.  By his order dated February 27, 1961  respondent no. 2 set aside the permanent rights acquired by the company to  the  extent of 27 standard acres, 111/2 units  and  also cancelled  the quasi-permanent ’allotment of the ,land  made in  the name of the company.  On March 29, 1961  a  revision petition was filed by the company to the Central Government, respondent  no. 1.  But the revision petition was  dismissed on  May 10, 1961. On June 8, 1961 the company filed  a  writ petition  under  Art. 226 of the  Constitution  praying  for grant  of a writ to quash the order of the Chief  Settlement Commissioner dated February 27, 1961. The writ petition  was allowed by Shamshat Bahadur, J.  But the respondent took the matter  in  appeal  under  el. 10 of  Letters  Patent  to  a

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 4  

Division  Bench which reversed the judgment of  the  learned single Judge and ordered the writ petition to be dismissed. 536     Section  24 of the Displaced Persons  (Compensation  and Rehabilitation)  Act, 1954 (44 of 1954) (hereinafter  called the Act) states:                   "(1) The Chief Settlement Commissioner may               at   any  time  call  for  the  record   o/any               proceeding   under   this  Act  in   which   a               Settlement Officer,  an  Assistant  Settlement               Officer, an Assistant Settlement Commissioner,               an   Additional  Settlement  Commissioner,   a               Settlement Commissioner, a managing officer or               a managing corporation has passed an order for               the  purpose of satisfying himself as  to  the               legality  or propriety of any such  order  and               may pass such order in relation thereto as  he               thinks fit.                   (2) Without prejudice to the generality of               the foregoing power under sub-section (1 ), if               the Chief Settlement Commissioner is satisfied               that any order for payment of compensation  to               a   displaced   person   or   any   lease   or               ’allotment  granted to such a person has  been               obtained  by  him  by means  of  fraud,  false               representation or concealment of any  material               fact, then, notwithstanding anything contained               in this Act, the Chief Settlement Commissioner               may   pass   an  order   directing   that   no               compensation shall be paid to such a person or               reducing the amount of compensation to be paid               to  him, or as the case may be, canceling  the               lease or ’allotment granted to him; ’and if it               is found that a displaced person has been paid               compensation  which is not payable to him,  or               which  is in excess of the amount  payable  to               him,  Such amount or excess, as the  case  may               be,  may on a certificate issued by the  Chief               Settlement  Commissioner be recovered  in  the               same manner as an arrear of land revenue. In  support of the appeal it was contended on behalf of  the company  that the document described as jamabandi,  annexure II to writ petition, was not the jamabandi of the year 1946- 47  of  the land in dispute and the Division  Bench  was  in error  in  holding that the  Chief  Settlement  Commissioner could properly rely upon annexure .  It was pointed out that annexure  II  was  not  the jamabandi  for  1946-47  but  it consisted  of three notes one saying "Maamur bai", that  is, that  there  is no land of non-Muslims in the  village.  the second  note  related  to Kartar Chand and  Gopal  Dass  who embraced Islam and the third related to sale of his land  by Harjit  Singh in favour of S.A. Latif.  All these notes  are dated May 3, 1951.  It was pointed out that these notes were made on May 3, 537 1961  for  the  purposes of exchange of  jamabandi  and  the document  did not depict the state of affairs as  on  August 15,  1947 which was the material date.  It is not  necessary to  examine  this document in detail for we are  of  opinion that  the appeal must be allowed and the order of the  Chief Settlement  Commissioner must be quashed on the ground  that there  is  no finding of the Chief  Settlement  Commissioner that  the Company had obtained allotment    of the land  "by means  of fraud, false representation or concealment of  any material  fact" within the meaning of s. 24(2) of  the  Act.

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

It  is  true that the  Chief  Settlement  Commissioner   had recorded a finding that the company had not proved its title to  any  land  in village Momonpura and  the  allotment  was "undeserved".  But this is not tantamount to a finding  that the allotment had been obtained by a false representation or fraud or concealment of material facts.  Such a finding is a condition precedent for taking action under s. 24(2) of  the Act.  The condition imposed by the section is mandatory  and in  the  absence of any such finding  the  Chief  Settlement Commissioner  had ,no jurisdiction to cancel  the  allotment made  to the company under s. 24(2) of the Act.   For  these reasons  we hold that the appeal should be allowed  and  the judgment  of  the Division Bench dated October 26,  1965  in Letters Patent Appeal should be reversed and the judgment of Shamshat  Bahadur, J., dated November 28, 1963 quashing  the order  of the Chief Settlement Commissioner  dated  February 27, 1961 should be restored. The appeal is accordingly allowed with costs. R.K.P.S. Appeal allowed. 538