http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 9  

CASE NO.: Appeal (civil)  6741 of 1999

PETITIONER: Pohla Singh @ Pohla Ram (d)by Lrs. & Ors.

RESPONDENT: State of Punjab & Ors.

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 05/05/2004

BENCH: CJI & G.P. Mathur.

JUDGMENT: JUDGMENT

G.P. MATHUR,J.

1.      This appeal by special leave has been preferred against the judgment  and order dated 4.6.1999 of a Full Bench of  High Court of Punjab &  Haryana whereby Letters Patent Appeal preferred by respondent no.4  Gurcharan Singh was allowed, the  judgment and order dated 13.8.1992 of   the  learned Single Judge allowing the writ petition filed by the appellants  Pohla Singh and others  was set aside and the writ petition was dismissed.

2.      Dhanna Singh (father of Gurcharan Singh respondent no.4) had been  allotted land by way of a military grant in Sind (Pakistan).  On partition of  the country he migrated to India.  He was initially allotted 79.39 standard  acres of land in Village Budhlada, Tehsil Mansa, District  Bhatinda which  on account of  report of Patwari in some Revenue Proceedings was reduced  to 68.68 standard acres.  In the year 1955, The Pepsu Tenancy and  Agricultural Lands Act was promulgated and section 3 thereof provides that  the permissible limit shall mean "thirty standard acres of land".  Accordingly  proceedings for determination of the surplus area were initiated and by an   order passed on  28.3.1961, which was ex-parte,  28.68 acres of land were  declared as surplus.  Dhanna Singh then filed an application for  setting  aside the ex parte order wherein he  also indicated his choice for the plots to  be declared as surplus.  The  Collector (Agrarian Reforms) Bhatinda, by his  order dated 9.6.1961, set aside the ex-parte order and the plots, choice of  which was given by Dhanna Singh, equivalent to 28.68 standard acres, were  declared as surplus. Under the Utilization of Surplus Area Scheme the land  declared as surplus was allotted to the appellants on 5.3.1962, Sannads  as  prescribed in Form-V were issued to them and they were put in possession  of the land. The compensation with regard to surplus area was determined at   Rs.13,882.53/- which was deposited by the appellants and was received by  Dhanna Singh.  Thereafter consolidation proceedings took place and  mutation was ordered in favour of the appellants. 3.       After a long time Dhanna Singh filed a revision on 19.11.1966  against the order dated 9.6.1961  of the Collector, declaring his land as  surplus, but the same was dismissed by the Financial Commissioner,  Revenue on 2.3.1967 on the ground of limitation as the same was beyond  time by 1882 days.  Thereafter he  filed CWP No. 3213 of 1968 challenging  the order of the Financial Commission and also the order of Collector dated  9.6.1961.   The Pepsu Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1955  (hereinafter referred to as ’the Act’) had been amended by Act No. 11 of  1968 whereby section 51A was introduced therein which provides that  where any land is granted for gallantry at any time before 26th day of  January, 1950 such land  or portion, as the case may be, shall not be taken  into account in computing the surplus area under the Act.  Relying upon the  said provision the learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition  by  the   judgment and order dated 9.1.1980  and set aside the order declaring 28.68  standard acres as surplus.  It is important to note that in this petition (i) State

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 9  

of Punjab; (ii) Financial Commissioner; and (iii) Collector, (Agrarian R.A.  II), Bhatinda were impleaded as respondents.  Though the surplus land had  been allotted in favour of appellants on 5..3.1962 and they had been put in  possession over the same, but they were not impleaded as parties to the writ  petition nor any notice was issued to them.

4.      The appellants then filed CWP  1287 of  1980 wherein they claimed  several reliefs including a writ of  mandamus directing the respondents  not   to dispossess them from the land allotted to them.  In this petition besides the  above mentioned official respondents, Gurcharan Singh son of Dhanna  Singh was also impleaded as respondent no.4 as he had been substituted on  account of death of his father during the pendency of CWP no.3213 of 1968.  The writ petition was contested by Gurcharan Singh alone.  The learned  Single Judge held that no doubt section 51A of the Act had been introduced  with retrospective affect i.e. from the date of the enforcement of the Act of  1955 itself, but the question whether it could be applied to transactions or  sales which had already been completed and confirmed by the authorities  was a significant question and before divesting the persons of the  rights  which had accrued in their favour the least which was required to be done  was to afford them an opportunity of hearing.  In view of the fact that  Dhanna Singh in his writ petition did not implead the appellant Pohla Singh  and others, who had been allotted the surplus land under the provisions of  Utilisation of Surplus Area Scheme and further he had accepted the  compensation amount for the land declared as surplus and had deliberately  concealed the said fact, the writ petition was liable to be allowed.  On these  findings  the writ petition was allowed  on 13.8.1992 and it was held that the  appellants were not bound by the decision rendered in CWP no.3213 of 1968  decided on 9.1.1980 and further that they shall not be dispossessed from the  land in dispute in compliance with the aforesaid order.  Gurcharan Singh  then preferred a Letters Patent Appeal which has been allowed by a Full  Bench of the High Court by the judgment and order dated 4.6.1999 and it  has been held that he was entitled to the protection available under section  51A of the Act and consequently the declaration of  surplus area was wrong  and its allotment to the appellants was illegal.  He was also held entitled to  restoration of the possession.  A further direction was issued  that the   competent authority shall consider the claim of the appellants herein for  allotment of alternative land in accordance with law.

5.      For convenience sake we will refer to Dhanna Singh or his son  Gurcharan Singh  as land holder and the appellants Pohla Singh and others  (some of whom have also died) as allottees.

6.      Learned counsel for the appellants (allottees) has submitted that after  28.68 standard acres of the land had been finally declared surplus, the same  was allotted to them on 5.3.1962 and they were put in possession of the land.   Mutation of their name was done and revenue entries were corrected.  The  compensation amount determined for the surplus area declared was paid by  the allottees and was accepted by Dhanna Singh which he continued to  retain.  The entire land was barren, had tibbas and deep ditches.  The  allottees toiled  hard,  made the land cultivable, invested money in installing  tubewells and planted trees and made the land fertile and  of high yielding  variety.   Dhanna Singh had initially  not challenged the order dated  9.6.1961 of the Collector declaring his land as surplus and was satisfied with  the same.  However, it was only after he came to know that the Act is going  to be amended that he filed the revision which was beyond time by 1882  days. Paragraph 4 of the revision petition and the prayer made read as under:   Para 4: That the State of Punjab is presently enacting that the  lands which have been granted as Military grants should be  excluded   from the operation of the Pepsu Tenancy and  Agricultural Lands Act.  The Bill is shortly to be introduced in  the Punjab Legislative Assembly which is going to have  retrospective effect."

Prayer: It is therefore humbly prayed that since the proposed  Act is being introduced for excepting such land from the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 9  

operation of the Pepsu Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, the  petition may be kept to be pending and be decided after the  passing of the proposed Act exempting the land in question  from being declared surplus"

7.      Learned counsel has further submitted that after the  revision was  dismissed on the ground of limitation he preferred the writ petition no. 3213  of 1968 wherein he deliberately did not implead the allottees as respondents  though they were in possession for more than six years of the surplus area  declared.  It has also been submitted that the amended provision section 51A  of the Act could not in any manner affect the transactions which had attained  finality and  therefore  the allottees cannot be dispossessed in pursuance of  the order passed in the writ petition preferred by the land holder especially  when the order therein has been passed without affording an opportunity of  hearing to them.

8.   Shri PP Rao, learned senior counsel appearing for the land holder  (respondent no.4) in this appeal, has submitted that Dhanna Singh had been  given land for gallantry by way of military  grant in Sind (Pakistan). After  partition of the country he migrated to India and  was allotted 79.39 standard  acres of land in lieu of the land held by him in Sind.  Act no.11 of 1968  specifically provided that section 51A shall be deemed always to have been  inserted  in the principal Act and in view of  the language used in the said  provision, the land granted for gallantry could not be taken into account in  computing the surplus area.  The provisions of section 51A had to be given  affect to and consequently no land of Dhanna Singh could  be declared  as  surplus.  He has also submitted that where a land holder is challenging the  declaration of his land as surplus, he is required to implead the State  authorities only as respondents who are taking the action and there is no  requirement to implead the allottees of the surplus land as parties to the  proceedings.  It has  thus been contended that the view taken by the learned  Single Judge in the writ petition filed by the land holder wherein he set aside  the declaration of surplus land was perfectly correct and the Full Bench of the  High Court rightly set aside the order dated 13.8.1992 passed by the learned  Single Judge wherein a writ of mandamus had been issued not to dispossess  the allottees as such an order could not be passed once it is held that the  declaration of surplus area of the land holder itself was contrary to law.  Shri  Rao has also submitted that writ petition no. 1287 of 1980 preferred by the  allottees was not maintainable as a petition under Article 226 of the  Constitution cannot be filed for quashing or setting aside of the order passed  in an earlier writ petition.

9.     In our opinion a question which goes to the root of the matter has  escaped the attention of the High Court and has not been considered at all.   There is no dispute that Dhanna Singh had been allotted land by way of  military grant in Sind (Pakistan). After partition of the country, he came to  India and he was given land in District Bhatinda under the Displaced Persons   (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954 and proceedings for declaration  of surplus area have been  applied to such land, namely, land in Bhatinda and  not to the original land which had been allotted in Sind.  The Pepsu Tenancy  and Agricultural Lands Act, 1955 was amended by Act no.11 of 1968 by  which section 51A was inserted therein and it was specifically mentioned that  section 51A "shall be deemed always to have been inserted".  Section 51A of  the Act reads as under:- "Section 51A Exemption of lands granted for gallantry  before 26th January, 1950 \026 Notwithstanding anything  contained in this Act, where any land is granted for gallantry at  any time before the 26th day of January, 1950, to any member  of the armed forces, whether  maintained by the Central  Government or by any Indian State, then, so long as such land  or any portion thereof, as the case may be, has not passed from  the original grantee into more than three successive hands by  inheritance or bequest and  is held by the grantee or any of such  hands, such land or portion, as the case may be, shall not be  taken into account in computing the surplus area under this Act,

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 9  

nor shall any tenant of such land or portion have the right to  purchase it under section 22:

Provided that where such land or portion has passed into more  than three such hands and the person holding such land or  portion, immediately before the 3rd of August, 1967, is a person  to whom it has passed by inheritance or bequest, the exemption  under this section shall apply to such land or portion thereof, as  the case may be, during the life time of such person.".                     (Emphasis supplied)

       This provision, therefore, gives protection to such land which had  been given for gallantry at any time before 26th day of January, 1950, subject  to fulfillment of certain other conditions.  

10.    The land which Dhanna Singh was holding in District Bhatinda had  been given to him under the Displaced Persons (Compensation and  Rehabilitation Act, 1954) (for short ’Rehabilitation Act’).  The preamble of  the Act reads as under: "An Act to provide for the payment of compensation and  rehabilitation grants to displaced persons and for matters  connected therewith."  

The Statement of Objects and Reasons of the Act, inter alia, says that  the compensation  to be paid to displaced persons will be confined to the  utilisation of the acquired evacuee property in India as well as any amount  realised from Pakistan on account of the difference between the values of  evacuee properties in the two countries.  The loans so far advanced to  displaced persons from West Pakistan, the properties built by the  Government for their rehabilitation and the provision made till May 1953 for  their rehabilitation for the future under the Five Year Plan or otherwise will  be utilised for rehabilitation by giving grants.  The Bill provides for the  payment of rehabilitation grants and also for appointment of a Chief  Settlement Commissioner, Settlement Commissioners and Settlement  Officers who will determine and pay the amount of compensation and  rehabilitation grant payable to persons having verified claims.  Managing  officers and managing corporations will be entrusted with the custody,  management and disposal of the assets in the pool.  11.     Some provisions of the Rehabilitation Act which have a bearing on the  controversy in hand need examination.   Section 2(a) of this Act defines  ’compensation pool’ and it means   the compensation pool constituted under  section 14;  Section 2(b) contains a long definition of a ’displaced person’  and it basically means any person who,  on account of the setting up of the  Dominion of India and Pakistan or on account of civil disturbances etc. has  after the first day of March 1947, left or been displaced from his place of  residence and who has been subsequently residing in India and who for that  reason is unable or has been rendered unable to manage, supervise or control  any immovable property belonging to him in West Pakistan.  Section 4(1) of  this Act provides that the Central  Government shall, from time to time, but  not later than the thirtieth day of June, 1955, by notification in the official  gazette, require all displaced persons having a verified claim to make  applications for the payment of compensation  and any such notification may  be issued with reference to displaced persons residing in any State or any  one of a group of States. Section 7 (1) and (2) and Section 8 of this Act read  as under: Section 7.    Determination of the amount of compensation -  (1) On receipt of an application for payment of compensation  together with the record of the case forwarded under section 5,  the Settlement Commissioner shall make an inquiry in such  manner as may be prescribed and having due regard to the  prescribed scales of compensation, the nature of the verified  claim and other circumstances of the case, shall ascertain the  amount of compensation to which the applicant is entitled.

(2)     On ascertaining the amount of compensation to which an

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 9  

applicant is entitled under sub-section (1), the Settlement  Commissioner shall deduct therefrom the following dues  recoverable from the applicant, in the order of priority  mentioned below:-

(a)     \005\005\005\005(omitted as not relevant)   (b)     \005\005\005\005(omitted as not relevant) (c)     \005\005\005\005(omitted as not relevant)

(3)     After deducting the dues referred to in sub-section (2),  the Settlement Commissioner shall make an order determining  the net amount of compensation if any, payable to the applicant.

(4)     The amount, if any, deducted under sub-section (2) shall  be paid to the person entitled to it.

Section 8.   Form and manner of payment of compensation - (1)     A displaced person shall be paid out of the compensation  pool the amount of net compensation determined under sub- section (3) of section 7 as being payable to him, and subject to  any rules that may be made under this Act, the Settlement  Commissioner or any other officer or authority authorised by  the Chief Settlement Commissioner in this behalf may make  such payment in any one of the following forms or partly in one  and partly in any other form, namely:-

(a)     in cash; (b)     in Government bond; (c)     by sale to the displaced person of any property  from the compensation pool and setting off the  purchase money against the compensation payable  to him; (d)     by any other mode of transfer to the displaced  person of any property from the compensation  pool and setting off the valuation of the property   against the compensation payable to him; (e)     by transfer of shares or debentures in any company  or corporation; (f)     in such other form or may be prescribed.

12.     The heading of Chapter III is - Compensation Pool For Purposes Of  Payment Of Compensation And Rehabilitation Grants To Displaced Persons.  Sub-section (1) of section 12 confers power on the Central Government to  acquire 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 by notification in the official gazette.  Sub- section (2) of section 12  provides that after publication of a notification, 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.  Section  14 deals with compensation pool and it reads as under: Section 14.  Compensation Pool (1) For the purpose of  payment of compensation and rehabilitation grants to displaced  persons, there shall be constituted a compensation pool which  shall consist of-

(a)     all evacuee property acquired under section 12, including  the sale proceeds of any such property and all profits and  income accruing from such property;

(b)     such cash balances lying with the Custodian as may, by  order of the Central Government, be transferred to the  compensation pool;

(c)     such contributions, in any form whatsoever, as may be

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 9  

made to the compensation pool by the Central Government or  any State Government;

(d)     such other assets as may be prescribed. (2)     The compensation pool shall vest in the Central  Government free from all encumbrances and shall be utilised in  accordance with the provisions of this Act and the rules made  thereunder.

As the preamble shows that the Rehabilitation Act was enacted to  provide for payment of compensation and rehabilitation grants to those  persons who had been displaced from the area now  falling in  Pakistan on  account of their migration to India

13.     The dictionary meaning of the word ’compensation’ is as under :

Black’s Law Dictionary -    money given to compensate loss or injury. Webster’s Third New     - The act or action of making up, making  International Dictionary       good or counter balancing, rendering equal.  

Law Lexicon by          -   something given or obtained  as an equivalent,  P. Ramanatha Aiyer              an   equivalent   given  for property taken or for                                                any injury done to another.  

14.     Section 4 enjoins a displaced person having a verified claim to make  application for payment of compensation.  Under sub-section (1) of section 7   the Settlement Commissioner, after making an inquiry, has to ascertain the  amount of compensation to which the applicant is entitled and under sub- section (3)  of  same section  the Settlement Commissioner has to make an  order determining the net amount of compensation payable to the applicant.   Section 8 provides for payment of net compensation amount out of the  compensation pool and this can be done in various ways viz.(a) in cash; (b)  in government bond; (c) by sale to the displaced person of any property from  compensation pool and setting off the purchase  money against the  compensation payable to him; (d) by any other mode of transfer of any  property from the compensation  pool and setting off  the value thereof  against the compensation payable to him. Therefore, the Scheme of the Act  is that a displaced person, as defined in Section 2(b) of this Act, was entitled  to compensation, which had to be determined by the Settlement  Commissioner  and such an amount had to be paid to him. Sub-section (3) of  section 7 is very important and it specifically provides for payment of the  compensation amount which had been determined by the Settlement  Commissioner to the displaced person. However,  instead of paying the  compensation amount in cash, some property from the compensation pool  could  be sold or transferred to him and the purchase money had to be set off  against the compensation payable. This clearly shows that a displaced person  on account of his migration to India after partition did not get the same  property   which he had in the area which became Pakistan, but he got  monetary compensation though it was possible that some property out of  compensation pool could be sold or transferred to him out of the said  compensation amount.  The consequence is that the land which Dhanna  Singh got in village Budhlada, in District Bhatinda is not the same land  which he had got by way of military grant in Sind.  It is an  altogether  different land purchased out of compensation amount which was payable to  him or could have been transferred to him by setting off the valuation of the  property against the compensation payable to him.     

15.     Section 51A of the Act lays down that "where any land is granted for  gallantry \005\005.. such lands or portion \005\005\005. shall not be taken into  account in computing surplus area \005\005\005".    The language used in the  Section shows in unequivocal terms that if the grantee holds any specific  land or portion which had been granted for gallantry then subject to  fulfillment of other conditions it shall not be taken into account for  computing the surplus area.   Therefore, Section 51A can come into

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 9  

operation only if the specific land which had been granted for gallantry is in  possession of the person concerned and not otherwise.   In the present case  the land which had been granted to Dhanna Singh by way of gallantry award  was situate in Sindh which he abandoned when he came to India on account  of partition of country.   Thereafter, on account of the loss suffered by him,  he became entitled to compensation under Section 7 of the Rehabilitation  Act, 1954.   The land which he got in village Budhlada,  District Bathinda,  was either by way of sale by setting off the purchase money against the  compensation payable to him in accordance with Clause (c) or by any other  mode of transfer from the compensation pool and setting off the valuation of  the property against the compensation payable to him in accordance with  Clause (d) of Sub-section (1) of Section 8.   Therefore, the land in  possession of Dhanna Singh was an altogether different land and not "such  land" which may have been given to him by way of gallantry and  consequently Section 51A of the Pepsu Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act  can have no application at all.  

16.   Shri P.P. Rao, learned senior counsel for the land holder, has  on the  strength of Gurbachan Singh v. Puran Singh AIR 1961 SC 1263  urged that  the land in village Budhlada would not lose its character  and for all intent  and purposes should be treated as land given for gallantry as the same was  given to Dhanna Singh in lieu of the land which he had in Sindh (Pakistan).    In the authority cited it was held that where land has been consolidated and  in lieu of ancestral land and non-ancestral land a consolidated area is given  to a proprietor, then such a portion of the consolidated area which  corresponds to the area of land which was ancestral, will be ancestral land.    The authority cited is clearly distinguishable on facts and further it does  not  relate to a case where land may have been given to a displaced person under  the Rehabilitation Act.   In Piarey Lal v. Hori Lal AIR 1977 SC 1226 having  regard to the provisions of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, it was  held that where in a suit for specific performance of agreement for sale the  defendant had been allotted new plots as a result of the consolidation of his  holding under the said Act, the agreement for sale became void within the  meaning of Section 56 of the Contract Act on account of defendant losing  the plots for which the agreement was executed and getting new plots in lieu  thereof and the plaintiff’s suit for specific performance was liable to be  dismissed.

17.     A similar argument, as has been urged on behalf of the land holder in  the present case, was raised in Sailen Krishna Majumdar v. Malik Labhu  Masih 1989 Supp. (1) SCC 302, wherein the controversy hinged on the  interpretation of certain provisions of Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act.  Herein land had been given by way of gallantry award to the appellant’s  father posthumously in Layallpur (Pakistan) and after partition, the appellant  migrated to India and was given land in District Jallandhar. In Punjab  Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953 Section 19-DD was inserted by Punjab  Act 12 of 1968 and it is para materia with Section 51A of Pepsu Tenancy  and Agricultural Lands Act, 1955.    Repelling the contention it was held as  under in para 8 of the Reports : "8.     We are referred to the provisions of the Displaced  Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954.   It is an  Act to provide for the payment of compensation and  rehabilitation grants to displaced persons and for matters  connected therewith.   We have not been shown in it any  provision to the effect that any land given as compensation to a  displaced person for loss of gallantry award land may imbibe  the covenant of exemption available under Section 19-DD of  the Act.  We are consequently of the view that there is no basis  for holding that the exemption in respect of the gallantry award  land will be available in respect of the land given under the  Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act,  1954 as compensation for the loss thereof.   We find no  infirmity in the High Court judgment on this count."

18.     Shri P.P. Rao, learned senior counsel for the respondents (land

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 8 of 9  

holders) has also submitted that Civil Writ Petition No.3213 of 1968 filed by  Dhanna Singh had been allowed by the High Court by the judgment and  order dated 9.1.1980 and the orders passed by the Collector on 9.6.1961 and  that by the Financial Commissioner on 2.3.1967 were set aside.  This order  of the  learned Single Judge of the High Court having not been challenged  by the allottees by preferring an appeal, became final and consequently it  was not open to another learned Single Judge to entertain another Writ  Petition (Civil Writ Petition No.1287 of 1980) at the instance of the allottees  and to make a declaration that they (allottees) were not bound by the  decision rendered on 9.1.1980 in CWP no.3213 of 1968 and also that they  cannot be dispossessed from the land in dispute in compliance thereof.   It  may be mentioned here that the final order regarding declaration of surplus  land of Dhanna Singh was passed by Collector on 9.6.1961 and thereafter  the surplus land was allotted to the allottees on 5.3.1962 and a Sannad was  issued in their favour and they were also put in possession thereof.  The  allottees had deposited the compensation amount of Rs.13,882.53, which  was received by Dhanna Singh.   However, in the Writ Petition filed by  Dhanna Singh in 1968 which came to be decided on 9.1.1980, the allottees  were not impleaded as parties.   The decision in the writ petition clearly  affected their rights.   Civil Writ Petition No.1287 of 1980 was filed by the  allottees under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, wherein they  claimed several reliefs and prayer nos. (ii) and (v) read as under : "(ii)   that the decision contained in the judgment dated 9.1.1980 in  CWP 3213 of 1968 be declared to be not binding on the  petitioners as they had deliberately been omitted from  impleaded as parties in the writ petition.

(v)     that the decision dated 9.1.1980 in CWP 3213 of 1968 be re- called and the case be re-decided after hearing the petitioners  who are necessary parties to the said writ petition."

       In this petition Gurcharan Singh son of Dhanna Singh was arrayed as  Respondent No.4 and the judgment shows that the petition was contested  only by the said respondent.   If a decision rendered in a writ petition  adversely affects the interest of a third person who was not impleaded as  party in the writ petition, it is always open to him to ask for recall of the  judgment which has been rendered without affording any opportunity of  hearing to him.  An identical question has been examined by a Constitution  Bench in Shivdeo Singh v. State of Punjab AIR 1963 SC 1909.    Here in a  writ petition filed by A for cancellation of the order of allotment passed by  the Director of Rehabilitation in favour of B, the High Court cancelled the  order in favour of B though he was not a party to the writ proceedings.    Subsequently, B filed a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution for  impleading him as a party to A’s writ petition and rehearing the whole  matter.   The High Court allowed the writ petition.   It was held by this Court  that the second writ petition filed by B was maintainable and the High Court  had not acted without jurisdiction in reviewing its previous order at the  instance of B, who was not a party to the previous proceedings.   It was  further held that there is nothing in Article 226 of the Constitution to  preclude a High Court from exercising the power of review which inheres in  every Court of plenary jurisdiction to prevent miscarriage of justice or to  correct grave or palpable errors committed by it.  In entertaining B’s  petition, the High Court thereby did what the principles of natural justice  required it to do.  

19.     The recourse taken to the second writ petition by the allottees,  therefore, cannot be said to be illegal as their basic grievance was that  though they were in possession since 1962 i.e. for nearly 18 years, but the  order declaring the land as surplus had been set aside in a writ petition,  wherein they were not impleaded as parties.   In these circumstances we are  of the opinion that the writ petition filed by the allottees was rightly allowed  by the learned Single Judge.

20.     Against the aforesaid decision of the leaned Single Judge, Gurbachan  Singh son of Dhanna Singh preferred Letters Patent Appeal which was

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 9 of 9  

allowed by the Full Bench of the High Court and the said decision is subject  matter of challenge in the present appeal.   As discussed earlier, the view  taken by the Full Bench is not correct.   The learned Single Judge while   allowing the writ petition of the allottees has also observed in the order that  if permissible the question as to whether the land could be declared surplus  or not may be determined in any proceedings that may be competent under  law and also whether on account of retrospective operation of section 51A of  the Act respondent no.4 was entitled to ask for setting aside of the orders  declaring his land as surplus where the question as to whether the appellants  had acquired an indefeasible right which cannot be taken away even by  retrospective amendment of the Act shall also be gone into.  The allottees  did not challenge this part of the order by filing any Letters Patent Appeal.    However, having regard to the view taken by us and to avoid any scope for  further litigation and to do complete justice between the parties, we set aside  the said direction of the learned Single Judge and also the judgment and  order dated 9.1.1980 passed in the writ petition filed by Dhanna Singh.

21.   The appeal is accordingly allowed with costs and the impugned  judgment and order rendered by the Full Bench of the High Court on  4.6.1999 and also the judgment and order dated 9.1.1980 passed in Civil  Misc. Writ Petition no. 3213 of 1968 are set aside.