http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 5  

PETITIONER: CHAND KUMAR KAPUR

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: CHIEF SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER PUNJAB & ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT12/12/1983

BENCH: MISRA RANGNATH BENCH: MISRA RANGNATH DESAI, D.A. MISRA, R.B. (J)

CITATION:  1984 AIR  463            1984 SCR  (2)   1  1983 SCALE  (2)1057

ACT:      Displaced Persons (Compensation & Rehabilitation ) Act, 1954.      East Punjab  Administration of  Evacuee  Property  Act, 1947.      Displaced  person-Allotted  land  in  semi-urban  area- Policy decision  taken to  impose cut  in allotment-Managing officer whether competent to cancel allotment.      Evacuee Property (Central) Rules 1950, Rule 14(6).      Action taken  prior  to  promulgation  of  rule-Whether valid.      Interpretation of  Statues-Displaced persons-Payment of compensation-Undue enrichment-Whether permissible.

HEADNOTE:      The  appellant,  an  evacuee  from  West  Pakistan  was allotted about  six standard  acres  of  land  as  displaced person under  the quasi-permanent  scheme  in  a  semi-urban area. In  1952, the  Director of  Rehabilitation submitted a proposal  to   the  Financial   Commissioner,   Relief   and Rehabilitation-cum-Custodian that premium cut of 5 villages, be enhanced  from  18.3/4%  to  50%  as  similarly  situated villages carried  a cut  of 50%. The proposal also suggested that in two other neighbouring villages where no premium cut had been  applied earlier,  a similar  cut of  50% should be applied. This  cut was  imposed on  the footing  that  these lands  abutted   the  Municipal   area  and  had  semi-urban character. This proposal was accepted by the Commissioner as also by  the Governor before 22nd July, 1952 when rule 14(6) of the  Evacuee Property  (Central) Rules, 1952 was amended, which provided  that in respect of quasi-permanent allottees cancellation was  permitted only  on grounds set out in rule 14(6)      A few  allottees challenged  the order implementing the policy decision  of cut  of 50%  but the  writ petition  was however dismissed and the order was confirmed by this Court.      When steps  were taken  to  enforce  the  cut,  a  writ petition was  moved by  the appellant. A Single Judge of the High Court  dismissed  the  petition,  and  this  order  was confirmed by the Division Bench.      In the  appeal to  this Court  on the  question, as  to

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 5  

whether the  Managing Officer  operating under the Displaced Persons (Compensation  &  Rehabilitation)  Act,  1954  could cancel the  allotment made  in favour  of a displaced person under the  East Punjab  Administration of  Evacuee  Property Act, 1947, and the schemes framed thereunder. 2      Dismissing the Appeal, ^      HELD:  1.   At  the  time  when  the  proceedings  were initiated and  the final  order dated the 3rd February, 1952 was passed,  the relevant  provisions of  sub clause  (6) of rule 14  were not  yet on  the statute  book and  the action taken prior to their promulgation was perfectly valid and in accordance with law. [4 D]      2. There  is no  justification  to  allow  the  benefit claimed by the appellant. The respondent will however not be precluded from  entertaining the  offer by the appellant, if made, to  pay the  extra premium  and/or any  further demand with a  view to  obtaining a lawful settlement of the entire property without  cut on the basis of the initial allotment. [5 G-H]      3. People  who were  uprooted from  Pakistan and became displaced persons  were to  be compenstated  on the  footing that they  had left  behind lands  in Pakistan  and lands of people who  had left  India for  Pakistan had become evacuee properly and the compensation to the displaced persons could be by  settlement of  such lands.  In such  cases no one can look for  undue enrichment.  Once it  is held as a fact that the properties  are semi-urban  and when  this had  not been kept in  view when  original allotment  had  been  made,  it should always  be possible  to make  an adjustment.  Such an adjustment is just and fair. [5 C-D]      In the  instant  case,  there  were  117  allottees  in villages which  were declared  semi-urban and  97  of  these allottees paid the extra premium and were allowed to acquire the entire land given to them. Twenty allottees including he appellant took  steps to  challenge the  decision  regarding levy of  premium as  also cut in the allotments. There is no justification as to why any differential treatment should be shown to  these twenty  allottees particularly  when all the 117 allottees  stood at par so far as the application of the decision contained  in the  order dated February 3, 1952 was concerned. [5 E-F]      Basant Ram  v. Union  of India,  [1962] 2 Suppl. S.C.R. 733; Hukum  Chand etc.,  v. Union  of India & Ors., [1973] 1 S.C.R. 896  referred to.  Hoshnak Singh  v. Union of India & Ors., [1979] 3 S.C.R. 399; distinguished.

JUDGMENT:      CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 2057 of 1970.      From the  Judgment and  order dated  5th March, 1970 of the Punjab  & Haryana  High Court  at Chandigarh in L. P. A. No. 159 of 1968.      Harbans Lal and Vinoo Bhagat for the Appellant.      S. K. Bagga for the Respondents.      The Judgment of the Court was delivered by      RANGANATH MISRA,  J. The only question which arises for consideration of this Court in this appeal by way of special leave under  Article 136  of the  Constitution  against  the Judgment of  the Punjab  & Haryana  High  Court  in  Letters Patent  Appeal   is  as  to  whether  the  Managing  Officer operating under the Displaced Persons (compensa-

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 5  

3 tion &  Rehabilitation) Act,  1954 (‘1954  Act’ for  short), could cancel  the allotment  made in favour of the appellant under the  East Punjab  Administration of  Evacuee  Property Act, 1947  (‘Punjab  Act’  for  short)  and  schemes  framed thereunder.      Appellant,  an   evacuee  from   West  Pakistan   owned agricultural land  in District  Lyuallpur.  As  a  displaced person he  was allotted  a little  more  than  six  standard across of  land in Village Kotla, Tehsil Jullundur in Punjab under the  quasi-permanent scheme.  In 1952  the Director of Rehabilitation  submitted   a  proposal   to  the  Financial Commissioner, Relief  and Rehabilitation-cum-Custodian  that premium cut  of 5  villages, viz.,  Sufi Pind, Dhin, Barring Khusropur and Alladingpur be enhanced from 18.3/4% to 50% as similarly situated  villages near  Jullundur City  carried a cut of  50%. This  proposal also suggested that in two other neighbouring villages,  viz., Shekhpind  and Kotla  where no premium cut  had been  applied earlier, a similar cut of 50% should be  applied. This was on the footing that these lands abutted the  Jullundur Municipal  area  and  had  semi-urban character. This proposal was accepted by the Commissioner as also by  the Governor of the State before 2nd July 1952 when rule 14  (6) of  the Evacuee  Property (Central) Rules, 1950 was amended  and in  respect  of  quasi-permanent  allottees cancellation was  permitted only  on grounds set out in rule 14(6). The  allottees of  Sheikh  Pind  and  Kotla  villages challenged the  orders implementing  the policy  decision of cut  of   50%  before   the  hierarchy   of   rehabilitation authorities and  moved the  High  Court  by  filing  a  writ petition. When  that writ  petition was  dismissed,  special leave was  obtained from this Court and the Court found that after coming into force of the 1954 Act and the Notification made on  March 24,  1955, under  s. 12 of the Act, the lands already allotted  to displaced  persons ceased to be evacuee property and  had become  part of the pool created under the 1954 Act.  Power was not available to be exercised under the 1950 Act.      Subsequently steps were taken to enforce the curt and a writ petition  was moved  before the  High Court.  When  the single judge dismissed the petition, and appeal was taken to the Division  Bench and  four contentions  were advanced  on behalf of  the appellant  and cach one was negatived and the appeal was  dismissed. It  may be  stated that   appeal  was heard along  with 19 others raising common questions of fact and law.  Against this  confirming decision  of the Division Bench, leave  having been  obtained  from  this  Court,  the present appeal has been filed. 4      Admittedly, the  lands allotted  to  the  appellant  in village Kotla  are close to the Municipal limits of the town of Jullundur  and this  being a  question of  fact, has  not rightly been disputed before us. The High Court has found :           "It deserves  notice that  the proceedings for the      enhancement of the valuation of the land of the village      and the  consequent raising  of the  cut to 50 per cent      were initiated  as early  as the  year 1951.  After due      verification   by    the   subordinate   Rehabilitation      Authorities by  actual visits on the spot, the proposal      to enhance the cut was finally approved by the Director      General of Rehabilitation and subsequently received the      seal of  approval by  the order  of the Governor on the      3rd February  1952. The  significant fact  is that sub-      clause (6)  of rule  14 on which main reliance is being      placed  was   substituted  for   the  old  sub-rule  by

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 5  

    notification  No.  S.R.O.  1290  dated  the  22nd  July      1952..... It  would thus  appear that  at the time when      the proceedings  were initiated  and  the  final  order      dated the  3rd February  1952, was passed, the relevant      provisions of sub-clause (6) of rule 14 were not yet on      the statute  book and  the action  taken prior to their      promulgation was thus perfectly valid and in accordance      with law.  The order  dated the  3rd of  February 1952.      therefore, did not have to conform to a provision which      has  been  introduced  subsequently.  It  was  not  the      contention of  the learned  counsel that sub-clause (6)      above said  is to take effect retrospectively nor do we      find anything  in the  said rule  to  accord  any  such      effect to the same." On the aforesaid finding the High Court held that the scheme stood altered.      We approve of this view taken by the High Court. Strong reliance had  been placed  by appellant’s  counsel on Basant Ram v.  Union of India, Hukum chand etc. v. Union of India & Ors (2)  and Hoshnak  Singh v.  Union of  India & Ors(3). In Basant Ram’s  case this  Court decided  that the approval of the  Central   Government  on   the  basis   of  which   the Notification  of   March  24,   1955  had   been  made   was misconceived inasmuch  as with  the coming into force of the 1954 Act  the Administration  of Evacuee  Property Act, 1950 (Central Act 31 5 Of 1950) stood repealed and the evacuee property, subject to the Act  of 1950, had become a part of the compensation pool under the  Act of  1954. We  agree with the analysis of that decision by  the High  Court. So  far as  the second case is concerned, the  question that  fell  for  consideration  was whether rules framed by it could be made given retrospective operation by  the Central Government when the statute either expressly or  by necessary  implication had  not  authorised rules to  be made  with retrospective  effect. So far as the last case  is concerned,  the facts  which gave  rise to the dispute were  very different  and the  ratio thereof  has no application to the present set of facts.      In dealing  with  a  matter  of  this  type  the  broad perspective of the scheme has to be kept in view. People who were uprooted  from Pakistan  and became  displaced  persons were to  be compensated  on the  footing that  they had left behind lands  in Pakistan  and lands  of people who had left India for  Pakistan had  become  evacuee  property  and  the compensation to the displaced persons could be by settlement of such  lands. In  a case  of his  type no one can look for undue enrichment.  Once it  is  held  as  a  fact  that  the properties are  semi- urban and admittedly this had not been kept in view when original allotment had been made it should always be possible to make an adjustment. Such an adjustment is just  and fair.  It is appropriate to take note of a very significant feature,  namely, there  were 117  allottees  in these villages which were declared sub-urban and 97 of these allottees paid  the  extra  premium,  and  were  allowed  to acquire the  entire land  given to  them,  Twenty  allottees including the appellant took steps to challenge the decision regarding levy  of premium  as also  cut in  the allotments. There  is  no  justification  as  to  why  any  differential treatment  should   be  shown   to  these  twenty  allottees particularly when  all the 117 allottees stood at par so far as the  application of  the decision  contained in the order dated February  3,1952 is concerned. We do not know if under the changed circumstance the same benefit is available to be extended to  the appellant  now, viz., permitting him to pay

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

the extra premium at present. More than 30 years have passed and with  the passage  of such  a  length  of  time  changed situations  must   have  come   to  prevail.   We   see   no justification to  accept the  appeal, and  allow the benefit claimed by  the appellant.  But our  dismissal of the appeal should  not   preclude  the   respondent  authorities   from entertaining the offer by the appellant, if made, to pay the extra premium  and/or any  further demand  with  a  view  to obtaining a lawful settlement of the entire property without cut on  the basis of the initial allotment. We make no order for costs in this appeal. N.V.K.                                     Appeal dismissed. 6