http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 12  

PETITIONER: SADHU SINGH (DECEASED) & ORS.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT02/09/1978

BENCH: SINGH, JASWANT BENCH: SINGH, JASWANT PATHAK, R.S. SEN, A.P. (J)

CITATION:  1979 AIR 1609            1979 SCR  (3)1279

ACT:      Displaced Persons  (Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 1954-S.  19-Land   allotted  to  displaced  person-Allotment cancelled without  complying with  provisions  of  the  Act- Validity of.

HEADNOTE:      The respondent,  who was  a displaced  person from West Pakistan, was  allotted certain  land in India and was given its possession.  At the time of consolidation of holdings in 1960 the  Consolidation Officer included a part of this land comprising 13-odd  acres in  the area  of the Custodian. The respondent’s representations  protesting against  the action of the  Consolidation Officer having failed at the different levels, the  respondent moved  the High Court under Art. 226 of the  Constitution. The  High Court set aside the impugned orders of  the Consolidation Officer on the ground that they were wholly  without jurisdiction  and  that  the  concerned officer was  not authorised  to allot  to the  appellant the land which  was already  comprised  in  a  subsisting  valid allotment made to the respondent.      On the  question whether  the land in dispute which had already stood  allotted in favour of the respondent could be allotted  in   favour  of   others  without  notice  to  the respondent and  without affording  an opportunity  of  being heard. ^      HELD: The respondent had succeeded in establishing that permanent proprietary  allotment of  the land in dispute was validly made  in his  favour. Therefore  the respondent  had enforceable right in respect of the land and it could not be allotted in favour of others. [1292F-G]      Although in  certain contingencies  it would be open to the Managing  Officer or  the Managing Corporation to cancel the  allotment   under  s.   19  of  the  Displaced  Persons (Compensation and  Rehabilitation) Act,  1954 read with Rule 102   of    the   Displaced    Persons   (Compensation   and Rehabilitation) Rules  1955, it  can not  be done unless the allottee is  given a  reasonable opportunity of being heard. [1293F]      In the  instant case  no  action  for  cancellation  of allotment was  taken under the provisions of the Act and the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 12  

Rules. The action of the Naib Tehsildar-cum-Managing Officer in allotting  to the  appellant the  land which  had already stood in  the name  of the respondent without complying with the relevant provisions of the Act was in flagrant violation of the provisions of the law. Therefore, the impugned orders were manifestly  illegal, arbitrary and unjust and could not be sustained. [1293H]

JUDGMENT:      CIVIL APPELLATE  JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 2419 of 1968.      From the Judgment and Order dated 25-9-67 of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Civil Writ No. 1630/62. 1280      S. K.  Mehta, P. N. Puri, K. R. Nagaraja and G. Lal for the Appellants.      K. L.  Narula, District  Attorney, Haryana, R. B. Datar and Girish Chandra for Respondent No.1.      E. C. Agarwala for Respondent No. 14      (Rest of the Respondents Ex-parte)      The Judgment of the Court was delivered by      JASWANT SINGH,  J.-The litigation  culminating  in  the present appeal  (by certificate  under Article  133(1)(b) of the Constitution) which is directed against the judgment and order dated  September 25,  1967, of  the Punjab and Haryana High  Court  in  C.W.N.  1630  of  1962  setting  aside  the allotment dated  May 23,  1960 made  by Naib  Tehsildar-cum- Managing Officer,  Fatehabad, District  Hissar in  favour of Madan Mohan  and others, and orders dated April 18, 1962 and July 21,  1962 of  the Assistant Settlement Commissioner and Chief Settlement  Commissioner respectively  on the  finding that "no  part of  the holding which formed part of the land allotted to respondent No. 14, Mehta Lal Chand, (hereinafter referred  to   as  ’the   respondent’)  could,   during  the subsistence of  such allotment and without its cancellation, be allotted to any one else" has had a very chequered career extending over  well nigh  two decades.  It appears that the respondent who is a displaced person from Pakistan was found entitled to  an allotment  of 113 standard acres and 3 units of land in lieu of 120 acres of land held by him as owner in Bhawalpur (Pakistan). Against the aforesaid entitlement, the respondent was  allotted 90  standard acres  and 6  units of evacuee land  between 1953 and 1958 in different villages of Tehsil  Fatehabad,   District  Hissar  including  two  areas measuring (1)  13 standard  acres and 3 1/2 units and (2) 13 standard acres  and  13  1/2  units  in  village  Bahmniwala allotment of which was made on March 1, 1957 and October 10, 1958 respectively.  Pursuant to  the above  allotment of  13 standard acres and 3 1/2 units made in his favour in village Bahmniwala vide  Sanad dated  March 6, 1957 (Annexure ’C’ to the writ  petition), the  respondent was given possession of the plots  of land  comprised in  khasra Nos. 1411 min, 1412 min, 1472 min, 1241 min, 1242, 1243, 1244, 1245, 1246, 1247, 1621, 1622  to 1635  (14 khasras),  1642, 1644, 1645 on June 17, 1957.  The respondent  continued to remain in possession of  the   aforesaid  plots  of  land  till  Rabi  1960  when consolidation  of   holdings  were   undertaken  in  village Bahmniwala. Without  caring to look into the revenue record, the Consolidation  Officer instead  of showing the aforesaid allotted area in Bahmniwala in the name 1281 of the  respondent included the same in the kurrah (area) of the Custodian.  On coming  to know  about this irregularity,

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 12  

the respondent  filed objections  before  the  Consolidation Officer and  requested  him  to  rectify  the  mistake.  The Consolidation Officer  by his  order dated  March  23,  1960 consigned the  objection petition  of the  respondent to the record room  observing that  in the  absence of the relevant record which,  as per  the report of the Wasal Baqi Nawis is has been  despatched to Jullundur for checking purposes, the factum  of  allotment  cannot  be  verified  and  as  it  is necessary to  take proceedings  under section  21(2) of  the Consolidation of  Holdings Act in village Bahmniwala in this very month,  the record  cannot be  awaied any  further. The Consolidation  Officer   further  observed   that  since  it appeared from a perusal of the copy of the Sanad (allotment) that the  entire kurrah  consisted of  almost  evacuee  land bearing khasra  numbers mentioned in the Sanad of allotment, the respondent  could, on the receipt of the record, get the area at  the place where, according to him, the evacuee land mentioned by  him in  his application  was situate.  By  his order dated  May 23,  1960, the  Naib Tehsildar-cum-Managing Officer, Fatehabad,  however, made  the following allotments out of  an area  of 58 standard acres and 7 units situate in Bahmniwala  which   included  the   khasra  numbers  already allotted to  the respondent  but which according to the Fard Fazla (statement  of surplus area) prepared by the concerned Patwari appeared to be available for allotment:-      In favour of Bagga Singh, S/o Pokhar Singh: 5 1/2 units      "   "  " Inder Singh, S/o Mit Singh        : 7 Standard                                                  acres 1                                                  1/2unit      "  "  " M. dan Mohan Singh, S/o Puran Singh,      "  "  " Odin Singh and Harduman Singh,      20 Standerd                                                  acres 2                                                  units             Sons of Madan Mohan Singh,             Predecessor-in-interest of             the appellants      Aggrieved by  this  order  of  the  Naib-Tehsildar-cum- Managing Officer  which  adversely  affected  the  allotment already made  in his  favour, the  respondent  preferred  an appeal to the Assistant Settlement Commissioner (with powers of Settlement  Commissioner), Punjab,  Jullundur  contending that 13 standard acres and 3 1/2 units of land in Bahmniwala allotted to him in 1957 had been erroneously included in the ’kurrah’ of  the Custodian  at the time of the Consolidation operations and  that  the  same  had  now  been  erroneously allotted without  his knowledge to Bagga Singh, Inder Singh, Madan 1282 Mohan Singh  and his  sons. Curiously  enough, the Assistant Settlement   Commissioner   (with   powers   of   Settlement Commissioner) while conceding that the aforesaid 13 standard acres and 3 1/2 units and 13 standard acres and 13 1/2 units in  village  Bahmniwala  were  allotted  in  favour  of  the respondent  on   June  17,   1957  and   October  10,   1958 respectively and  that there  was no  cancellation order  in respect  thereof  and  that  the  consolidation  authorities should not  have withdrawn  the area  from the  name of  the respondent who had through no fault of his been put to a lot of difficulty  and that  it was  just and  proper  that  the matter of allotment to which he was entitled be settled once for all in such a way that whole of the area is given to him permanently in one village, rejected the appeal by his order dated April 18, 1962 observing that there was no good ground for interfering  with the  allotment of  the appellants  and that it would be open to the respondent to apply to the Naib

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 12  

Tehsildar-cum-Managing Officer  to make  up the shortfall in his area  by allotment  of some  other  land  which  may  be available in  that village.  Dissatisfied with  the order of the Assistant  Settlement Commissioner,  the respondent took the   matter   in   revision   to   the   Deputy   Secretary (Rehabilitation)  exercising   the  powers   of  the   Chief Settlement Commissioner  who also  after paying lip sympathy dismissed the  revision on  the  ground  that  it  was  time barred. Aggieved  by these  orders, the respondent moved the High Court  of Punjab  and Haryana by means of the aforesaid petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution. The High Court  by its  judgment and  order dated  September 25, 1962 set  side the  aforesaid thee  impugned orders  holding that  they   were  wholly   without  jurisdiction   and  the Tehsildar-cum-Managing Officer  was not  authorised to allot to the  appellants the land which was already comprised in a subsisting valid  allotment of the respondent. It is against this judgment  and order  of the High Court that the present appeal is directed.      On the  appeal coming up before us on July 19, 1978, we heard counsel  for the  parties at  considerable length  and felt it  necessary for clarification of certain points which had been  left vague  the courts below to have before us the entire record  relating to  the allotment  made in favour of the respondent. Accordingly, with the consent of counsel for the parties,  we adjourned  the  hearing  of  the  case  and directed  the   Union  of   Indian  to  instruct  the  Chief settlement Commissioner,  State of Haryana, either to appear himself before  us with all the relevant record relating not only to  the allotment  originally made  in  favour  of  the respondent vide  Sanad No.  HS4/ 1957/11202  dated March  1, 1957  but  also  with  the  record  pertaining  to  all  the subsequent allotments made in his favour upto date or 1283 cause the  appearance of  a  responsible  officer  with  the aforesaid record.  To obviate delay in disposal of the case, we also  directed the  Chief Settlement Commissioner to have in readiness  a factual  statement showing  the net  area in terms of standard acres to which the respondent was entitled as  a   displaced  person,  the  particulars  of  the  field initially  allotted  in  his  favour  including  the  survey numbers and  the extent  of the area thereof, particulars of the  survey   numbers  of   the  fields  taken  out  of  the respondent’s  allotment   vide  Naib  Tehsildar-cum-Managing Officer, Tehsil  Fatehabad’s order  dated May  23, 1960  and particulars of  all the subsequent allotments made upto date in the respondent’s favour in different villages of District Hissar including  village Bahmniwala  as also  the extent of the  allotted   area  which  is  at  present  held  by  him. Accordingly, the  Chief Settlement  Commissioner has  caused the attendance  of K.  L. Narula,  Deputy District Attorney, Rehabilitation Department,  Haryana, Chandigarh who has also filed  an   affidavit  relating   to  the  points  on  which information was  required by  us. We have perused the entire material and have again heard counsel for all the sides.      Two questions  arise for determination in this case-(1) whether the  respondent acquired  any enforceable right as a result of  the allotment made in his favour on March 1, 1957 and delivery  in pursuance  thereof to  him of possession of the aforesaid  khasra numbers  on  June  17,  1957  and  (2) whether the  parcels of land which already stood allotted in favour of the respondent vide allotment order dated March 1, 1957 could  be allotted  by the  Naib Tehsildar-cum-Managing Officer, Fatehabad in favour of Madan Mohan Singh and others without notice  to the  respondent and without affording him

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 12  

in opportunity of being heard.      The first question has to be considered in the light of the judgment  of this  Court  in  Amar  Singh  v.  Custodian Evacuee Property,  Punjab where  the whole  history  of  the legislative measures  devised  from  time  to  time  in  the erstwhile State  of Punjab  to combat  the gigantic problems created as a result of the mass migration of non-Muslim land holders to  East Punjab is traced. A perusal of the judgment reveals that  in exercise of the rule making power vested in it under  clauses (f) and (ff) of sub-section (2) of section 22 of the East Punjab Evacuees’ (Administration of Property) Act, 1947  (E. P.  Act No.  XIV of 1947) as amended in 1948, the Punjab  Government issued  Notification Nos.  4891-S and 4892-S on July 8, 1949 1284 setting out  the  conditions  regulating  allotment  by  the Custodian of  the  land  which  vested  in  him.  The  first incident of  allotment deducible  from the  notification  is hereditability  of   the  rights   of  the   allottee  which constitute  quasi-permanent   allotment.  The  statement  of conditions published  under  Notification  Nos.  4891-S  and 4892-S of  July 8,  1949  was  continued  in  force  as  the Administration of  Evacuee Property  (Rural) Rules framed by the Provincial  Government under  sub-section (2) of section 53  of  the  Central  Ordinance  No.  XXVII  of  1949  under delegation from  the Central  Government under  Notification No. 3094-A/Cus/49  dated December 2, 1949 subject to certain modifications and  amendments.  On  repeal  of  the  Central Ordinance by  Central Act  XXXI of 1950, the aforesaid rules were continued  by virtue of section 58 of the Act as though made under that Act. Later in exercise of the delegated rule making power  vested  in  the  Provincial  Government  under section 55  of the Central Act, the Punjab Government framed rules dated  August  29,  1951  entitled  "Instructions  for review and  revision of  land allotment"  which affected the rules of  July 8,  1949 only  to the  extent that  they were inconsistent with  the earlier  rules. A  reference  to  the earlier and subsequent rules would show that the later rules do not  concern any  of the  matters provided by the earlier rules of  1949 (and  1950) excepting  as regards  resumption which virtually  is cancellation  of allotment. The position that emerges  from the  foregoing is that the rules of July, 1949  continued   in  force   except  to   the   extent   of inconsistency. (The  next set  of rules are those made under Central Act  XXXI of 1950). Then came the rules dated August 29, 1951  made by  the Punjab  Government in exercise of the powers delegated  to it  by  the  Central  Government  under section 55(1)  of the  Central Act  XXXI of 1950. It will be seen that the rules of August 29, 1951 are substantially the same as  those enumerated  in clause  (6) of  July  8,  1949 notification as  regards resumption  and only supplement the notification of  July 8, 1949 as regards eviction in certain contingencies. The  rights  and  incidents  enjoyed  by  the allottees under the quasi-permanent scheme introduced by the aforesaid notification  of July  8, 1949  are catalouged  at page 823  of the  aforesaid judgment  of this  Court in Amar Singh v.  Custodian, Evacuee  Property, Punjab (supra). They are:           "1. The  allottee is  entitled to right of use and      occupation of  the property  until  such  time  as  the      property  remains  vested  in  the  Custodian.  [Clause      3(1).]           2. The  benefit of  such right  will ensure to his      heirs and successors. (Definition of ’allottee’).           3. His  enjoyment of  the property is on the basis

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 12  

    of paying  land-revenue thereupon  and ceases  for  the      time being. 1285      Additional  rent   may  be   fixed  thereupon   by  the      Custodian. If  and when  he does  so, the  allottee  is      bound to pay the same. [Clause 3(3).]           4.  He   is  entitled  to  quiet  and  undisturbed      enjoyment of  the property  during that period. (Clause      8).           5. He is entitled to make improvements on the land      with the  assent of  the Custodian  and is  entitled to      compensation in  the  manner  provided  in  the  Punjab      Tenancy Act. (Clause 7).           6. He is entiled to exchange the whole or any part      of the  land for other evacuee land with the consent of      the Custodian. (Clause 5).           7. He  is entitled  to lease the land for a period      not exceeding three years without the permission of the      Custodian and  for longer  period with his consent. But      he is  not entitled  to transfer  his rights  by way of      sale, gift,  will, mortgage  or other private contract.      [Clause 4(c).]           8. His  rights in the allotment are subject to the      fairly extensive  powers of  cancellation under the Act      and rules  as then  in force prior to July 22, 1952, on      varied administrative  considerations and  actions such      as the  following (Clause  6 and  subsequent  rules  of      1951):-           (a)  That the  allotment is contrary to the orders                of the  Punjab Government or the instructions                of the  Financial  Commissioner,  Relief  and                Rehabilitation, or  of the Custodian, Evacuee                Property, Punjab;           (b)  That the claims of other parties with respect                to the land have been established or accepted                by  the   Custodian  or   the  Rehabilitation                Authority;           (c)  That it  is necessary  or expedient to cancel                or vary  the terms  of an  allotment for  the                implementation of resettlement schemes and/or                rules framed  by the State Government; or for                such distribution  amongst displaced  persons                as appears  to the  Custodian to be equitable                and proper; 1286           (d)  That it  is necessary  or expedient to cancel                or vary  the terms  of an  allotment for  the                preservation, or  the proper  administration,                or the  management of such property or in the                interests   of   proper   rehabilitation   of                displaced persons. Then came  the two  Notifications Nos.  SRO 129 dt. July 22, 1952 and  SRO 351 dated Feb. 13, 1953 amending and recasting sub-rule (6)  of Rule  14 of  the Central  Rules of  1950 as under:           "(6) Notwithstanding  anything contained  in  this      rule, the  Custodian of Evacuee Property in each of the      States of  Punjab and  Patiala and  East Punjab  States      Union shall  not exercise  the power  of cancelling any      allotment  of   rural  Evacuee  property  on  a  quasi-      permanent basis,  or varying  the  terms  of  any  such      allotment, except in the following circumstances:           (i)  where the  allotment was  made  although  the                allottee  owned   no  agricultural   land  in                Pakistan;

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 12  

         (ii) where  the  allottee  has  obtained  land  in                excess of  the area  to which he was entitled                under  the   scheme  of   allotment  of  land                prevailing at the time of allotment;           (iii)where the  allotment is  to be  cancelled  or                varied-           (a)  in  accordance   with  an  order  made  by  a                competent authority  under section  8 of  the                East Punjab  Refugees (Registration  of  Land                Claims) Act, 1948;           (b)  on account  of the failure of the allottee to                take  possession   of  the  allotted  evacuee                property within  six months  of the  date  of                allotment;           (c)  in consequence  of a  voluntary surrender  of                the allotted evacuee property, or a voluntary                exchange with  other available  rural evacuee                property, or  a  mutual  exchange  with  such                other available property;           (d)  in accordance  with any  general  or  special                order of the Central Government;           Provided that  where an  allotment is cancelled or      varied  under   clause  (ii),  the  allottee  shall  be      entitled to retain such portion of the land to which he      would have  been entitled  under the  scheme of  quasi-      permanent allotment of land;           Provided further  that nothing  in  this  sub-rule      shall apply to any application for revision, made under      section 26 or 1287      section 27  of the  Act, within  the  prescribed  time,      against an  order passed  by a  lower authority  on  or      before 22nd July, 1952."      Thus the  power of resumption or cancellation of quasi- permanent allotment was restricted and reduced.      The next  legislative measure  is the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954 (Act No. XLIV of 1954), important  provisions whereof  which may be useful in dealing with  the first  question may  be noticed. Section 4 provides for  the time, the manner and the form of making an application for payment of compensation.      Section 10  of the  Act inter alia lays down that where any immovable  property has  been leased  or allotted  to  a displaced person by the Custodian under conditions published by the  Notification of  the Government of Punjab No. 4891-S or 4892-S  dated July  8, 1949 and such property is acquired under the  provisions of  the Act  and  forms  part  of  the compensation pool, the displaced person shall so long as the property remains  vested in the Central Government, continue in possession  of such  property on  the same  conditions on which he  held the  property immediately  before the date of the  acquisition.  It  further  provides  that  the  Central Government may for the purpose of payment of compensation to such displaced persons transfer to him such property on such forms and conditions as may be prescribed.      Section 12 provides:-           "12.(1) 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  acquire  such  evacuee  property  in

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 8 of 12  

    pursuance of this section.           (2) On  the publication  of a  notification  under      sub-section (1),  the right,  title and interest of any      evacuee  in  the  evacuee  property  specified  in  the      notification shall,  on and  from the  beginning of the      date on  which the  notification  is  so  published  be      extinguished and the evacuee pro- 1288      perty shall  vest absolutely  in the Central Government      free from all encumbrances.           (3) .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .."      It may  be noted  that by  virtue of Central Government Notification No. S.R.O. 697 dated March 24, 1955, under sub- section  (1)  of  this  section  12,  all  evacuee  property allotted under the Punjab Government Notification dated July 8, 1949  was acquired  by the  Central Government  excepting certain specified categories in respect of which proceedings were pending.      Section 13  which deals  with compensation  for evacuee property acquired says:           "13.  There   shall  be   paid   to   an   evacuee      compensation in  respect of his property acquired under      section 12  in accordance  with such  principles and in      such  manner   as  may   be  agreed  upon  between  the      Governments of India and Pakistan."      Section 14  which  provides  for  the  constitution  of compensation pool runs thus:           "14.  (1)   For  the   purpose   of   payment   of      compensation and  rehabilitation  grants  to  displaced      persons, there shall be constituted a compensation pool      which shall cosist 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 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."      Section 16 authorised the Central Government to appoint Managing Officers  or constitute  Managing Corporations  for the custody, management and disposal of compensation pool so that it  may be  effectively used  in  accordance  with  the provisions of the Act. 1289      Section  40   enables   the   Central   Government   by notification in  the official gazette to make rules. Whereas sub-section (1)  of the section confers general power on the Central Government  to make  rules to carry out the purposes of the  Act, sub-section  (2) of the Section particularities the subjects  on which  rules may  be made  by  the  Central Government without  prejudice to the general power contained in sub-section  (1). In  exercise of this power, the Central Government  made   rules  called   the   Displaced   Persons (Compensation and  Rehabilitation) Rules, 1955 and published the same vide Notification dated May 21, 1955.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 9 of 12  

    Rule 3  lays down  that an application for compensation may be made by a displaced person having a verified claim or if such  displaced person  is  dead,  by  his  successor-in- interest.      Rule  4   prescribes  the   from  of   application  for compensation.      Rule 16  says that  compensation shall  be  payable  in accordance with the scale specified in Appendices VIII or IX as the case may be.      Rule 49 as originally made ran thus:           "49. Compensation  normally to be paid in the form of land.           Except as  otherwise provided  in this  chapter, a      displaced person  having verified  claim in  respect of      agricultural land  shall, as  far as  possible, be paid      compensation  by   allotment  of   agricultural   land.      Provided that  where any such person wishes to have his      claim   satisfied    against   property    other   than      agricultural land,  he may  purchase such  property  by      bidding for  it at  an open auction or by tendering for      it and  in such  a  case  the  purchase  price  of  the      property shall be adjusted against the compensation due      on this  verified claim  for  agricultural  land  which      shall be  converted into  cash at the rate specified in      Rule 56."      In 1960,  the following  explanation was  added to  the above rule:           "Explanation:-In this  rule and in the other rules      of this  chapter, the  expression  ’agricultural  land’      shall mean  the agricultural  land situated  in a rural      area."      Rule 51  lays down  that the scale for the allotment of land as  compensation in  respect of  a verified  claim  for agricultural land shall be 1290 the same  as in the quasi-permanent land Allotment Scheme in the States  of Punjab and Patiala and the East Punjab States Union as set out in Appendix XIV.      Rule 67AA provides:           "67A. Compensation  to displaced persons from West      Punjab,  etc.,   in  respect   of  agricultural   land.      Notwithstanding anything  contained in  this Chapter, a      displaced person from West Punjab or a displaced person      who was  originally domiciled  in the undivided Punjab,      but who  before the  partition of  India had settled in      North-West Frontier Province, Baluchistan, Bhawalpur or      Sind, whose  verified claim  in respect of agricultural      land has  not been satisfied or has been satisfied only      partially by  the allotment  of evacuee  land under the      relevant notification  specified in  section 10  of the      Act shall  not be  paid compensation  in any form other      than the transfer of acquired evacuee agricultural land      and rural  houses and  sites in  the State of Punjab or      Patiala and East Punjab States Union in accordance with      the scales  specified in  the quasi-permanent allotment      scheme operating in those States:           Provided that if any person has been allotted land      in a State other than Punjab and his land claim has not      been satisfied  fully, he may, for the remaining claim,      either be  allotted land  due to  him in  that State or      issued a  Statement of Account which he may utilise for      purchase of  property forming  part of the compensation      pool or for adjustment of public dues."      Rule 68 is to the following effect:-           "68. Grant  of Sanad  for transfer of agricultural

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 10 of 12  

    land- Where any agricultural land is transferred to any      person under  these  rules,  the  transferee  shall  be      granted a  Sanad in  the form  specified in Appendix XV      (with such  modifications as  may be  necessary in  the      circumstances of  any particular case), or the transfer      may be  effected in any other manner in conformity with      the provisions  of any local or special law relating to      transfer of  agricultural land  in force  in  the  area      where such agricultural land is situated."      Rule 71 casts an obligation on every person to whom any immoveable property has been allotted by the Custodian under any of  the notifications specified in section 10 of the Act to file a declara- 1291 tion in  the form specified in Appendix XVI in the office of the Settlement  Officer or  before the authorised officer in the village  concerned on  the date and place notified under sub-rule (4).      Rule 72(1)  provides for  an enquiry where the allottee has no verified claim.      Rule 72(2)  lays down that if the Settlement Officer is satisfied that  the allotment  is  in  accordance  with  the quasi-permanent scheme,  he may  pass an  order transferring the land  allotted to the allottee in permanent ownership as compensation and  shall also issue to him a sand in the form specified in Appendix XVII or XVIII, as the case may be with such modifications  as may be necessary in the circumstances of any particular case granting him such right.      After  the   foregoing  conspectus   of   the   various legislative and  delegated legislative  measures, let us see whether the  respondent had  any right  the  enforcement  of which he  could have  sought by means of the above mentioned writ petition.  From  the  material  on  the  record  it  is abundantly clear  that the respondent migrated to India from West Punjab  in  the  wake  of  the  partition  of  the  Sub Continent in 1947 and that the settlement and rehabilitation authorities satisfied  themselves that he was entitled to an allotment of  113 Standard acres and 3 units of land in lieu of the  land left  behind by  him in  Bhawalpur.  Since  the respondent migrated from Bhawalpur where he had indisputably settled before  the partition  of the  Sub Continent and his verified claim in respect of agricultural land had been only partially satisfied,  he could  not according to rule 67A of the  Displaced  Persons  (Compensation  and  Rehabilitation) Rules, 1955,  be paid compensation in any form other than by transfer of acquired evacuee agricultural land in accordance with the  scale specified  in the  quasi permanent allotment scheme. Consequently,  it was  the duty  of  the  Settlement officer  under   Rule  72(2)   of  the   Displaced   Persons (Compensation and  Rehabilitation) Rules,  1955 to  pass  an order transferring  the land  allotted to  the respondent in permanent ownership  as compensation  and had to issue him a Sanad in the prescribed form. It also appears that by virtue of Notification  No. 697  dated March  24, 1955 issued under sub-section (1)  of section  12  of  the  Displaced  Persons (Compensation and  Rehabilitation) Act,  1954,  all  evacuee property allotted  under the  Punjab Government Notification dated July  8, 1947  (excepting certain specified categories in respect  of which  proceedings were pending) was acquired by  the   Central  Government.   It  is   in  view  of  this unchallengable position that we 1292 find from  the record  particularly the copy of Dharam Chand Patwari’s statement  dated April  6, 1962  made  before  the Assistant  Settlement  Commissioner  (Annexure  ’A’  to  the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 11 of 12  

petition at  pages 24 and 25 of the printed Paper Book) that allotment on  permanent proprietary  basis  of  13  standard acres and  3 1/2 units of land situate in village Bahmniwala was made  in favour  of the respondent on March 1, 1957 that Sanad evidencing  allotment of the aforesaid 28 kila numbers was issued  in favour  of the  respondent on  the same date; that possession  of the  aforesaid area of 13 standard acres and 3  1/2 units  was handed  over to the respondent on June 17, 1957; that entry regarding delivery of possession of the aforesaid 28  kila numbers  was made  by the  Patwari in the Roznamcha Waqaati  on June  17, 1957;  that entries exist in khasra  girdawaries  of  village  Bahmniwala  regarding  the respondent’s possession  of the  aforesaid fields  from June 17, 1957 upto Rabi 1960 when due to carelessness on the part of the Consolidation Officer, Ratia, Rectangle No. 133 (kila Nos. 4min,  5min, 6min,  7min, 14min,  15, 16, 17min, 24 and 25) and  Rectangle No.  134 (kila  Nos. 8min,  9min,  18min, 19min, 20,  21min and 22min) which were allotted in exchange of the  aforesaid 28  kila numbers  were entered  not in the name of  the respondent  but in  the kurrah of the Custodian and subsequently  due to the carelessness on the part of the Naib Tehsildar-cum-Managing  Officer were  allotted to Madan Mohan Singh and others.      In view  of the  foregoing, we  are of the opinion that the respondent  has succeeded in establishing that permanent proprietary allotment  of the  aforesaid 28  kila numbers of village Bahmniwala  was validily  made in  his  favour  vide aforesaid allotment  order dated March 1, 1957. Accordingly, we have  no hesitation in holding that the respondent had an enforceable right  in  respect  of  the  aforesaid  28  kila numbers of  village Bahmniwala.  In view  of  our  aforesaid finding  that   permanent  proprietary   allotment  of   the aforesaid 28  kila numbers was validly made in favour of the respondent which  conferred an enforceable right on him, the answer to the second question cannot but be in the negative. The view that we have formed is reinforced by the provisions of section  19 of  the Displaced  Persons (Compensation  and Rehabilitation) Act,  1954 and  Rule 102  of  the  Displaced Persons (Compensation  and Rehabilitation) Rules, 1955 which provide as under:-           "19. Powers  to vary  or cancel  allotment of  any      property acquired  under this  Act.-(1) Notwithstanding      anything contained in any contract or any other law for      the 1293      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 amend      the terms  of any  allotment under  which  any  evacuee      property acquired under this Act is held or occupied by      a person,  whether such allotment was granted before or      after the commencement of this Act...... "           102. Cancellation  of  allotments  :  "A  managing      officer or a managing corporation may in respect of the      property in  the compensation  pool entrusted to him or      to it,  cancel an  allotment or  vary the  terms of any      such allotment if the allottee-           (a)  has sublet  or parted  with the possession of                the  whole   or  any  part  of  the  property                allotted to  him without  the permission of a                competent authority, or           (b)  has used  or is  using such  property  for  a                purpose other  than that  for  which  it  was                allotted to  him without  the permission of a                competent authority, or

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 12 of 12  

         (c)  has committed any act which is destructive of                or permanently injurious to the property, or           (d)  for  any   other  sufficient   reason  to  be                recorded in writing.           Provided that  no action shall be taken under this      rule unless  the allottee  has been  given a reasonable      opportunity of being heard."      Though in  view of the above quoted provisions, it may, in certain contingencies, be open to the Managing Officer or Managing Corporation  to  cancel  the  allotment  under  the aforesaid section  19 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation)  Act, 1954  read with  Rule 102  of  the Displaced Persons  (Compensation and  Rehabilitation) Rules, 1955, it  cannot be  done unless  an  allottee  is  given  a reasonable opportunity  of being heard. In the present case, it is  clear from the record that no action for cancellation of allotment was taken under the aforesaid provisions of the Act  and  the  Rules.  It  is  not  understood  how  without complying with the aforesaid provisions, the Naib Tehsildar- cum-Managing Officer  allotted the  aforesaid parcel of land which already  stood allotted  in the name of the respondent to the  appellants. The  action on  the  part  of  the  Naib Tehsildar-cum-Managing Officer  was  evidently  in  flagrant violation of  the clear  and unequivocal  provisions of law. Accordingly, 1294 we agree  with the  High Court  that the impugned orders are manifestly  illegal,   arbitrary,  unjust   and  cannot   be sustained. However,  taking into consideration all the facts and circumstances of the case particularly the fact that the appellants appear  to have  purchased the  area in  question from Madan  Mohan Singh  for a  huge sum of Rs. 40,000/- and invested a  considerable amount  on the  construction  of  a house, we  think that  it will be eminently just and fair if the appellants  are allowed  to  retain  Rectangle  No.  134 comprising kila  Nos. 8min,  9min,  10min,  11,  12,  13min, 18min, 19min,  20, 21min and 22min on which their house also stands and  Rectangle No.  133 comprising  kila  Nos.  4min, 5min, 6min,  7min, 14min,  15, 16, 17min, 24 and 25 is given over to  the respondent. The learned counsel for the parties also agree  to this  course being adopted in the interest of justice.      The respondent  shall be  at liberty  to  approach  the settlement authorities  for allotment of some other suitable land in lieu of Rectangle No. 134 comprising kila Nos. 8min, 9min, 10min,  11, 12,  13min, 18min,  19min, 20,  21min  and 22min to  make up  the deficiency,  if any,  in the  land to which he  may  be  entitled  and  if  the  latter  i.e.  the settlement authorities  find that  the area  already held by the respondent  if added to the area now ordered to be given to him  still falls  short of  his entitlement, they will be free to allot him an area which will make up his unsatisfied claim provided  he is found otherwise authorised to hold the said area  on allotment  or occupy  the same under any other law in  force in  the State.  The allotment  of the  area to which the  respondent may be found entitled to shall, as far as possible,  be made  in the  vicinity of  the area already held by  him. Subject  this modification,  the rest  of  the judgment and  order of the High Court will stand. The appeal is disposed of accordingly. P.B.R.