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

PETITIONER: PALA SINGH (DECEASED) BY LRS.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT22/07/1987

BENCH: RAY, B.C. (J) BENCH: RAY, B.C. (J) SEN, A.P. (J)

CITATION:  1988 AIR  873            1987 SCR  (3) 624  1987 SCC  Supl.  201     JT 1987 (3)   133  1987 SCALE  (2)93

ACT:    Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation)  Act, 1954:  s. 24  Allotment of excess  land--Allottee  acquiring proprietary  rights--Chief Settlement  Commissioner--Whether competent to cancel allotment by Managing Officer.     Punjab   Package   Deal   Properties   (Disposal)   Act, 1976/Punjab   Package  Deal  Properties  (Disposal)   Rules, 1976---Rule  4--Package land in excess of  entitlement  can- celled--Purchase by allottee/successors-in-Interest--Permis- sibility of--Current market price--Determination by  Tehsil- dar (Sales).

HEADNOTE:     All  the surplus lands in the compensation pool  of  the Central Government as well as the excess area in the occupa- tion  of allottees were transferred under a package deal  to the Punjab Government with effect from April 1, 1961.     In  October  1961 the Managing  Officer,  Rehabilitation Department detected that there was excess allotment of  land to the appellant in lieu of land left by him in Pakistan. By an  order dated February 21, 1962 he allowed the  petitioner to  purchase the said excess area. The petitioner  deposited the required amount in the Treasury on March 6, 1962.     On  reference,  the Chief Settlement  Commissioner  held that  the excess land which was found in October 1961  could not  be  sold by the Managing Officer  under  the  Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954 as under the  package  deal  this land had been  transferred  to  the Punjab Government.     The  petitioner then made an application under s. 33  of the said Act to the Central Government which was  dismissed. Thereupon he moved a petition under Articles 226 and 227  of the  Constitution before the High Court, and contended  that he is entitled to get the same land as he had already depos- ited the price in accordance with the order of the  Managing Officer, and that the said purchase could not be can- 625 celled  on  the plea that the land had already  been  trans- ferred  to the Punjab Government by the  Central  Government under  the  package deal. The petition was  opposed  by  the respondent,  who contended that the transfer of the land  in

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

dispute  to the petitioner was void ab initio as  under  the package  deal  it vested in the State Government.  The  High Court  held that the Chief Settlement Commissioner  (Lands), had jurisdiction to cancel the allotment even after  confer- ment  of the proprietary right, that in view of the  package deal the title to the land had already passed to the  Punjab Government  in  1961 and no authority  under  the  Displaced Persons  Act could make any order in regard to the  sale  of the  land to the appellant at a concessional rate, and  that only the Punjab Government could deal with the said land. Dismissing the appeal by special leave,     HELD: 1. The Chief Settlement Commissioner had duly  and properly made the order. He was competent under s. 24 of the Displaced  Persons  (Compensation and  Rehabilitation)  Act, 1954  to cancel the allotment of land in excess of the  area the  petitioner was entitled to get under the provisions  of the Act. [630F, 629E]     Smt.  Balwant  Kaur  v.  Chief  Settlement  Commissioner (Lands),  Punjab, [1963] Punjab Law Reporter (Vol. 65)  1141 at 1187, approved.     2. The excess land allotted to the appellant was package deal  property  vested in the State of Punjab. As  such  the same could not be sold nor could it be allowed to be sold to the  petitioner-appellant by the Managing Officer under  the provisions  of the Displaced Persons Act. The order  of  the Managing  Officer, was, therefore, wholly without  jurisdic- tion  inasmuch  as the said property was no  longer  in  the compensation pool of the Central Government. [629CD]     Ram  Chander  v.  State of Punjab,  [1968]  Current  Law Journal (Punjab & Haryana) 668 approved.     3.  It is for the Government of Punjab to  consider  and decide  whether  the legal representatives of  the  deceased appellant  are  entitled to purchase the  said  excess  land under  the provisions of the Punjab Package Deal  Properties (Disposal)  Act,  1976. The Punjab Package  Deal  Properties (Disposal)  Rules,  1976 prescribe procedure as to  how  the lands  in  excess of the entitlement, which have  been  can- celled, may be transferred to the allottees or their succes- sors-in-interest. Rule 4 lays down that the allottee or  his legal representatives will not be entitled to 626 have  the excess land which was cancelled on the  ground  of fraud, concealment or mis-representation of material  facts. It  is also provided in clause 8 of the said rules that  the price  of  the land that will be transferred  shall  be  the current  market  price  to be determined  by  the  Tehsildar (Sales). [630G, 63lAB]

JUDGMENT:     CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1088  (N) of 1969.     From  the  Judgment  and Order dated  14.8.1968  of  the punjab and Haryana High Court in L.P.A. No. 95 of 1964. A. Minocha for the Appeallant.     Ms.  A. Subhashini, Mrs. S. Sun, C.V.S. Rao and P.  Par- meshwaran for the Respondents. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by     B.C. RAY, J. This is an appeal by special leave  against the  Judgment and Order made in L.P.A. No. 95 of  1964  dis- missing the appeal holding that the land in question  having already  vested  in the Government of Punjab  under  package deal,  the authority under the Displaced Persons  (Compensa- tion and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954 had no jurisdiction  over

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

lands in question.     Appellant, Pala Singh, a displaced person, was  allotted 9 standard acres and 12-1/4 units of land in village  Jhill, Tehsil  and  District Patiala in lieu of his  land  left  in Chack  No. 204 in 1950. He got the same quantity of land  in village Alipur Arain on mutual exchange with an allottee  of the  said village. The appellant was not allotted  any  land for the land left by him in village Santpura and Jaffapur in Tehsil  Phalia, District Gujarat. The area of Chack No.  204 R.B.  was described as a suburban area by the State  Govern- ment. The appellant applied for allotment in village Tripari Sayidan, a suburban of Patiala City. After due  verification from the records of the Rehabilitation Department at Jullun- dur,  the  petitioner being found entitled to  the  suburban allotment to the tune of 10 standard acres and two units  as also  to a rural allotment of 2 standard acres and  8  units was  allotted 6 standard acres 12-3/4 units of land in  Tri- pari  Sayidan.  Proprietary right in respect of  both  these allotments,  that is, at Tripari Sayidan and village  Alipur Arian  were granted to him vide sanads dated 17th  February, 1956. 627     In  October 1961, it was detected that there was  excess allotment  of 6 standard acres and 12-3/4 units  in  village Alipur Arian and accordingly the Managing Officer, Rehabili- tation  Department  by his order dated 21st  February,  1962 allowed  the  petitioner to purchase the said  excess  area. Petitioner deposited the required amount in the Treasury  on March  6, 1962. On March 27, 1962, i.e. 20  days  thereafter the  petitioner was served with a notice by  the  respondent no.  3, Assistant Registrar-cum-Managing Officer asking  him to appear before the respondent no. 2, the Chief  Settlement Commissioner, Civil Secretariat. Jullundur to show cause why the  order of the Managing Officer allowing him to  purchase the excess land should not be set aside, as it was a case of double allotment. The respondent no. 2, the Chief Settlement Commissioner,  after hearing the petitioner passed an  order holding that the excess land which was found in October 1961 could  not  be sold by the Managing Officer under  the  Dis- placed Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act,  1954, as under the package deal this land had been transferred  to the  Punjab Government. It was for the Punjab Government  to decide  if the said land would be sold to the petitioner  at the  reserve  price or not. The  reference  was  accordingly allowed  and the order of the Managing Officer allowing  the allottee  to  purchase the said 6.12-3/4 standard  acres  in village Alipur Arian, Tehsil District Patiala was set aside. The petitioner then made an application under Section 33  of the said Act to the respondent No. 1, the Central Government against  the said order. The said application was  dismissed by the respondent no. 1. Against these orders the petitioner moved a petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitu- tion  of India before the High Court of Punjab  and  Haryana under  Civil Writ Petition No. 1804 of 1962 on  the  grounds inter  alia that the petitioner is entitled to get the  same land  as he had already deposited the price of the  allotted land  in accordance with the order of the Managing  Officer. The  said purchase could not be cancelled on the  plea  that the  land had already been transferred to Punjab  Government by the Central Government under package deal.     A return was filed on behalf of the respondents  stating inter  alia that in lieu of land to the extent  of  6.12-3/4 standard  acres allotted to him in village Tripari  Sayidan, an  area  to the same extent was to be  withdrawn  from  his rural  allotment in village Alipur Arian. This  however  was

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

not  done through oversight and the allottee was in  posses- sion of the both lands in villages Alipur Arian and  Tripari Sayidan. This resulted in double allotment to the  petition- er. It was also submitted therein that the Managing  Officer wrongly allowed the petitioner to purchase the said land  in village Alipur Arian in February 1962. The 628 order of the Managing Officer was without jurisdiction as by that time property had gone out of the Compensation Pool and it  vested in the State Government. It was  further  averred that  the transfer of the land in dispute to the  petitioner was  void ab initio as under the package deal it  vested  in the State Government. Respondent no. 2 has rightly cancelled the allotment of excess land to the petitioner.     The  writ petition was dismissed by the  learned  Single Judge  holding inter alia that the Chief Settlement  Commis- sioner (Lands) had jurisdiction to cancel the allotment even after  the conferment of the proprietary right referring  to the  decision  in  the case of Smt. Balwant  Kaur  v.  Chief Settlement  Commissioner, [1968] P.L.R. 1141 (F.B.). It  was further held that the package deal came about in April  1961 whereas  the offer to purchase the excess land was  made  in February,  1962. i.e. at a time when the land was no  longer in  the Central pool but it vested in the State  of  Punjab. The  Chief Settlement Commissioner was justified in  cancel- ling the permission to purchase given by the Managing  Offi- cer as the land had already been transferred to the State of Punjab and the same ceased to vest in the Central  Compensa- tion Pool.     Aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 16th  January, 1964  passed  in  C.W.P. No. 1804 of 1962  an  appeal  under clause  X of the Letters Patent was preferred by  the  peti- tioner.  This  was registered as L.P.A. No. 95 of  1964.  On 14th  August, 1968, the Division Bench of Punjab High  Court after  hearing the parties held that there was no denial  by the appellant that in view of the package deal the title  to the land had already passed to the Punjab Government in 1961 and  no authority under the Displaced Persons  (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954 could make any order in regard to  the sale of land to the appellant at concessional  rate. The  title had passed to the Punjab Government in  1961  and after that it was only the Punjab Government who could  deal with that land. It was further held that there was no denial that  the land in question was covered by the package  deal. The only contention made by the appellant was that an appeal was filed in the Supreme Court from the judgment in the case of Ram Chander v. State of Punjab, [1968] Current Law  Jour- nal  (Punjab  &  Haryana) 668 wherein the  validity  of  the package  deal  was upheld. It was held that  if  the  appeal succeeds  in  this Court then it would be up  to  the  Chief Settlement Commissioner to review his own orders in the wake of  such  decision  of the Supreme Court in  order  to  give relief  to  the appellant. The appeal was  accordingly  dis- missed. 629     It  is  against this judgment and order this  appeal  by special leave has been filed.     It appears from the letters dated 3.6.1961, 5.3.1962  as well  as 23.3. 1963 issued from the office of Chief  Settle- ment  Commissioner,  Government of India  that  all  surplus lands as well as excess area in occupation of the  allottees stood transferred to the Punjab Government with effect  from 1.4.1961  and  the Punjab Government paid the price  of  the lands at the rate of Rs.445 per standard acre to the Central Government  by  half  yearly instalments  in  6  instalments

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

within  a period of three years commencing from  1st  April, 1961.  So these lands are package deal properties vested  in the State of Punjab. It has been rightly held in the Letters Patent  Appeal  confirming the order of the  learned  Single Judge in the writ petition that since the excess land allot- ted  to  the appellant was package deal  property  the  same cannot  be  sold  nor can it be allowed to be  sold  to  the petitioner-appellant  by  the  Managing  Officer  under  the provisions of Displaced Persons (Compensation and  Rehabili- tation) Act, 1954. So the order of the Managing Officer made in February, 1962 is wholly without jurisdiction inasmuch as the said property was no’ longer in the compensation pool of the  Central Government but it was a package  deal  property vested in the State of Punjab. It has also been rightly held that  the Chief Settlement Commissioner is  competent  under Section 24 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and  Reha- bilitation)  Act 44 of 1954 to cancel the allotment of  land in  excess  of the area the petitioner is  entitled  to  get under  the provisions of the said Act. This  legal  position has  been  settled by a decision of the Punjab  and  Haryana High  Court  in the case of Ram Chander v. State  of  Punjab (supra) wherein it has been held:-               "In  our  opinion, the package  deal  has  the               effect  of transferring the property from  the               Central Government to the Punjab State and the               logical result which flows from it is that the               Settlement  Authorities  as delegates  of  the               Central  Government could not pass any  orders               under the Act."     It  appears that the Civil Appeal No. 470 of 1969  which was  filed against the judgment and order passed in LPA  No. 298 of 1966 was disposed of by this Court (to which both  of us were parties) on 29th July, 1986 by recording the follow- ing order:-               "In view of the judgment in Civil Appeal  Nos.               2125(N) of 1968 and 1832 of 1969, there is  no               reason to consider the question of law  raised               by the State of Haryana in this               630               appeal. The appeal is accordingly disposed  of               without expressing any opinion on the merits."                   It also appears that this Court passed  an               order  on  29th July,  1986  dismissing  Civil               Appeal  Nos. 2125(N) of 1968 and 1832 of  1969               by recording the following order:-               "There  is no merit in these appeals.  By  the               judgment,  the  High Court has set  aside  the               sales  and directed re-auction of the  proper-               ties. We entirely agree with the reasoning and               conclusion  reached  by the  High  Court.  The               appeals  are  accordingly  dismissed  with  no               order as to costs."     It  is therefore clear and evident that the judgment  of the Punjab High Court rendered in the case of Ram Chander v. State of Punjab & Ors. (supra) insofar as it relates to  the validity of the package deal, has been upheld by this Court. So  there is no merit in this contention made on  behalf  of the appellant.     It  has also been held by the Full Bench of  the  Punjab High Court in the case of Smt. Balwant Kaur v. Chief Settle- ment Commissioner (Lands), Punjab, [1963] Punjab Law Report- er (Vol. 65) 1141 at 1187 that the Chief Settlement  Commis- sioner  was  competent to cancel or set aside the  order  of transfer even if the sanad was granted or the sale deed  had been executed and on such order being made the sanad or  the

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

sale deed will automatically fall with it.     On a conspectus of these decisions the point is now well settled  that  the respondent No. 2,  the  Chief  Settlement Commissioner  has duly and properly made the impugned  order of  cancellation of the excess allotment made to the  appel- lant.     It  appears  that  the petitioner has  already  made  an application  to the Government for allotment to them of  the said excess land on taking from them the appropriate  price. It  has been further stated that Pala Singh had died  during the  pendency of this appeal and he left his widow and  four sons  and daughters as his legal representatives. It is  for the Government of Punjab to consider and decide whether  the legal representatives of deceased appellant are entitled  to pourchase  the said excess land under the provisions of  the Punjab Package Deal Properties (Disposal) Act, 1976 and  the rules framed thereunder. It  is relevant to mention in this connection that the  Gov- ernment 631 of Punjab amended the rules and the said amended rules  have been  titled  as Punjab Package Deal  Properties  (Disposal) Rules, 1976. These rules lay down elaborate procedure as  to how  the lands in excess of the entitlement which have  been cancelled  may  be  transferred to the  allottees  or  their successors-in-interest. It also appears from Rule 4 that the allottee  or his legal representatives will not be  entitled to have the excess land which was cancelled on the ground of fraud, concealment or mis-representation of material  facts. It  is also provided in clause 8 of the said rules that  the price  of  the land that will be transferred  shall  be  the current  market  price  to be determined  by  the  Tehsildar (Sales).     For  the  reasons  aforesaid there is no  merit  in  the appeal  and as such it is dismissed with costs, assessed  at Rs. 1,000. P.S.S.                                         Appeal   dis- missed. 632