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

PETITIONER: STATE OF PUNJAB

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: SURAJ PARKASH KAPUR, ETC.

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 04/05/1961

BENCH: SUBBARAO, K. BENCH: SUBBARAO, K. KAPUR, J.L. HIDAYATULLAH, M. SHAH, J.C. DAYAL, RAGHUBAR

CITATION:  1963 AIR  507            1962 SCR  Supl. (2) 711  CITATOR INFO :  RF         1973 SC2344  (2)  RF         1979 SC1328  (16)

ACT: Evacuee  Property  Lands allotted to evacuee  by  Custodian- Government notification for consolidation of  holdings-Draft scheme by Consolidation Officer Substituting lands by  lands of  less  value on Government direction-Validity  of  scheme Application  for issue of writ by  allottee-Maintainability- East  Punjab  Holdings  (Consolidation  and  Prevention   of Fragmentation)  Act, 1948 (East Punjab 50 of 1948),  S.  14- Displaced  Persons  (Compensation and  Rehabilitation)  Act, 1954  (44  of 1954), SS. 10, 12--Administration  of  Evacuee Property  (Central)  Rules, 1950, r.  14(6)-Constitution  of India, Art. 220. 712

HEADNOTE: The  respondents,  a joint Hindu family  and  evacuees  from Pakistan,  were allotted certain lands by the  Custodian  of Evacuee  Property.   A  draft scheme  for  consolidation  of holdings  was  framed  and published  by  the  Consolidation Officer  in  pursuance  of  a  notification  by  the   State Government   under  s.  14  of  the  East  Punjab   Holdings (Consolidation  and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act,  1948. The scheme under the directions of the State Government  and contrary to the Act substituted lands of a lesser value  for those already allotted to the respondents.  Objections filed by  the  respondents  were  rejected  by  the  Consolidation Officer  and  the  scheme was confirmed  by  the  Settlement Commissioner.  Before the confirmation, the Central  Govern- ment by a notification under S. 12 of the Displaced  Persons (Compensation  and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954,  acquired  all evacuee properties and after the said confirmation issued  a sand conferring proprietary rights of the said lands on  the respondents.  The respondents bad moved the High Court under Art.  226 of the Constitution before the issue of the  sanad but  the  matter was finally disposed of by the  High  Court thereafter  by setting aside the said scheme  and  directing

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

the Consolidation Officer to dispose of the matter according to law. Held, that the notification issued by the Central Government under  s.  12  of the Displaced  Persons  (Compensation  and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954, did not put an end to the  rights the respondents had in the lands originally allotted to them by  the  Custodian and they had the right to move  the  High Court  under Art. 226 of the Constitution.  Sections 10  and 12  of the said Act read with r. 14(6) of the  Rules  framed under the Administration of Evacuee Property Act, 1950, made it  amply clear that the respondents held a  quasi-permanent tenure  in the said lands and as such had a  valuable  right therein.   Such  right  continued  while  they  remained  in possession  and  the lands remained vested  in  the  Central Government and with the grant of the sanad the limited right they  had  in  the  lands became  a  full-fledged  right  of property. Amar  Singh v. Custodian, Evacuee Property,  Punjab,  [1957] S.C.R. 801, referred to. The  East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and  Prevention  of Fragmentation) Act, 1948, did not empower the  Consolidation Officer to take away an allottee’s lands without giving  him other  lands of equal value or paying compensation  nor  did the Act empower the State Government either to do so in  any way  or  to direct the Consolidation Officer as  to  how  he should exercise his powers thereunder. Since,  in  the  instant case, the  respondents’  lands  had admittedly  been substituted by lands of less value  and  no compensation had been paid to them, the High Court was right in setting aside the order confirming the scheme.                             713

JUDGMENT: CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 349 of 1959. Appeal  from the judgment and order dated February 1,  1957, of the Punjab High Court, in Civil Writ Application No.  385 of 1955. B. K. Khanna and D. Gupta, for the appellants. The respondent did not appear. 1961.  May 4. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by SUBBA  RAO,  J.-This  appeal  by  certificate  is  preferred against the order of the Punjab High Court dated November 9, 1956,  setting aside the order of the Consolidation  Officer and  directing him to proceed with the matter in  accordance with law. The respondents are members of a joint Hindu family and  are evacuees  from Pakistan.  On March 3, 1950, in lieu  of  the lands  left  by  the family in Pakistan,  the  Custodian  of Evacuee  Property allotted to the said. family  11  standard acres and 9 units of Grade ’A’ land in Pati Kankra, Shahabad Estate  in  Tehsil Thanesar in Karnal  District.   The  said units  were  valued as equal to 123 standard kanals  and  18 standard  marlas  of  ’A’  Grade  land.   The  family   took possession  of  the  said land, and,  it  is  alleged,  made improvements   thereon.   On  July  28,  1954,   the   State Government  issued  a notification under s. 14 of  the  East Punjab    Holdings   (Consolidation   and   Prevention    of Fragmentation)  Act,  1948  (hereinafter  called  the  Act), declaring   its   intention  to  make  a  scheme   for   the consolidation  of the holdings.  On April 30, 1955, a  draft scheme  was  proposed  by  the  Consolidation  Officer   and published  indicating,  inter alia,  that  the  respondents’ family  would be given 84 standard kanals consisting  of  50

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

standard kanals and 7 standard marlas of ’A’ Grade land, and 34  standard kanals and I standard marla of ’B’ Grade  land. The  lands proposed to be substituted for the lands  already allotted  on  quasi-permanent  tenure  to  the  respondents’ family  are  admittedly  of a lesser  value  than  the  land allotted  to them earlier.  The said consolidation  was  not made 714 in  strict  compliance with the provisions of the  Act,  but pursuant   to   administrative  directions  given   to   the Consolidation  Officer  by the  State  Government.   Broadly stated, under the said directions the Consolidation  Officer was directed to take into consideration, for the purpose  of consolidation,  the number of acres held by the evacuee  and not  the  actual valuation at site of the land  allotted  to him.  The objections filed by the respondents were  rejected by  the Consolidation Officer.  By an order dated August  6, 1958, the Settlement Commissioner confirmed the scheme  pro- pounded  by  the  Consolidation  Officer.   Meanwhile,   the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act  (44 of 1954) became law; it came into force on October 9,  1954, i.e.,  after the Estate had been notified for  consolidation of  holdings.   On March 24, 1955,  the  Central  Government issued  a notification under s. 12 of the Displaced  Persons Act  (44  of 1954) acquiring all the evacuee  properties  to which that Act applied.  This notification was issued before the scheme of consolidation was confirmed by the  Settlement Commissioner.  On February 23, 1956, the Central  Government issued   a  sanad  conferring  proprietary  rights  on   the respondents  in  respect of the lands allotted  to  them  in 1950.   This  sanad  was  issued  after  the  order  of  the Settlement    Commissioner   confirming   the   scheme    of consolidation.   On November 9, 1955, i.e., before the  said sanad  was issued to them, the respondents filed a  petition in  the  High  Court  of  Punjab  under  Art.  226  of   the Constitution praying for the issue of an appropriate writ to quash  the said scheme of consolidation.  The High Court  by its  final  order dated February 1, 1957, allowed  the  said objection  and  issued  a  direction  to  the  Consolidation Officer to proceed with the matter before him in  accordance with law. Mr. Khanna, learned counsel for the State, raised before  us the  following two points: (1) The respondents had no  legal right  to  maintain  the  petition under  Art.  226  of  the Constitution.   And (2) the directions issued by  the  State Government   were   validly  issued  and,   therefore,   the Consolidation Officer was                             715 within  his rights to formulate the scheme on the  basis  of those instructions.’ Re.  (1).   The existence of a right  and  the  infringement thereof   are  the  foundation  of  the  exercise   of   the jurisdiction  of  the court under Art. 226  of  the  Consti- tution.   The right that can be enforced under Art.  226  of the  Constitution  shall  ordinarily  be  the  personal   or individual  right  of  the  applicant.   It  may  be   first considered  whether the respondents had such a right on  the date  when  they filed the petition under Art.  226  of  the Constitution.  They filed the petition on November 9,  1955, i.e., after the Central Government issued the,  notification acquiring  all the evacuee properties and before  it  issued the  sanad conferring proprietary rights on the  respondents in  respect  of the lands allotted to them.  The  nature  of interest of a displaced person in the properties allotted to him  under the evacuee law has been authoritatively  decided

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

by this Court in Amar Singh v. Custodian, Evacuee  Property, Punjab  (1).   There, Jagannadhadas, J.,  speaking  for  the Court, after an elaborate survey of the law on the  subject, came  to  the  conclusion  that the  interest  of  a  quasi- permanent  allottee was not property within the  meaning  of Art.  19(1)(f) and Art. 31(2) of the Constitution.  But  the learned  Judge made it clear that, notwithstanding the  said conclusion  an  allottee had a valuable right  in  the  said interest.   The learned Judge stated the legal  position  in the following words:               "In  holding  that  quasi-permanent  allotment               does not carry with it a fundamental right  to               property under the Constitution we are not  to               be supposed as denying or weakening the  scope               of  the rights of the allottee.  These  rights               as  recognized  in  the  statutory  rules  are               important  and constitute the essential  basis               of  a satisfactory rehabilitation and  settle-               ment  of displaced land-holders.   Until  such               time  as these land-holders obtain  sanads  to               the  lands,  these  rights  are  entitled   to               zealous   protection   of   the    constituted               authorities according to administrative  rules               and instructions binding on them, and of the               (1)   [1957] S.C.R. 801, 836.               716               courts by appropriate proceedings where  there               is  usurpation  of jurisdiction  or  abuse  of               exercise of statutory powers." It may be mentioned that the learned Judge in coming to  the conclusion  noticed  all the relevant Acts on  the  subject, including   the   Displaced   Persons   (Compensation    and Rehabilitation)  Act, 1954 (44 of 1954) and particularly  s. 12  thereof.  The observations of this Court  indicate  that notwithstanding such notification an evacuee has a  valuable right  in  the property allotted to him, and that  the  said right  is  entitled  to the protection  of  the  constituted authorities  and  the  courts.  A perusal  of  the  relevant provisions of Act 44 of 1954 demonstrates the correctness of the said observations.               Section 10.  Where any immovable property  has               been leased or allotted to a displaced  person               by   the   Custodian  under   the   conditions               published-               (a)   by the notification of the Government of               Punjab in the Department of Rehabilitation No.               4891-S or 4892-S, dated the 8th July, 1949; or               (b)   by the notification of the Government of               Patiala  and East Punjab States Union  in  the               Department  of  Rehabilitation No. 8R  or  9R,               dated  the 23rd July, 1949, and  published  in               the Official Gazette of that State, dated  the               7th   August,  1949,  and  such  property   is               acquired under the provisions of this 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, and the Central Government               may,  for  the purpose of payment  of  compen-               sation  to such displaced person, transfer  to               him such property on such terms and conditions               as may be prescribed.

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

             Section  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                                    717               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 pursuance of this section. A  reference  to  r.  14(6) of  the  rules  made  under  the Administration  of Evacuee Property Act, 1950, will also  be useful in this context.  Tinder that rule, the Custodian has no  power to make any order after July 22, 1952,  cancelling or   varying  the  allotments  made,  subject   to   certain exceptions with which we are not concerned here.  The result of  these  provisions is that under  the  Administration  of Evacuee Property Act, the respondents became quasi-permanent allottees  in respect of the land allotted to them in  1950. After  July  22,  1952, the Custodian  ceased  to  have  any authority to cancel or modify the said allotment.  After the notification  issued  by the Government under s. 12  of  the Act, so long as the property remained vested in the  Central Government, the respondents continued to be in possession of the  property on the same conditions on which they held  the property  immediately before the date of  acquisition,  that is, under a quasi-permanent tenure.  The contention that  on the  issue of the said notification, the respondents  ceased to  have  any  interest  in the said  land  is  without  any foundation.   It is, therefore, clear that on the date  when the  respondents filed the petition in the High  Court  they had  a  very valuable, right in the properties  allotted  to them which entitled them to ask the High Court to give  them relief under Art. 226 of the Constitution. That  apart,  on February 23, 1956, the  Central  Government issued  a  sanad to the respondents conferring  an  absolute right on them in respect of the said properties.  Though the sanad  was issued subsequent to the filing of the  petition, it  was  before the petition came to be disposed of  by  the High  Court.   At the time the High Court  disposed  of  the petition, the limited right of the respondents had blossomed 91 718 into a full-fledged property right.  In the circumstances of the case, the High Court was-fully justified in taking  note of that fact.  From whatever perspective this case is looked at,  it  is  obvious that the  respondents  hate  sufficient interest  in  the property to sustain their  petition  under Art. 226 of the Constitution. Re  (2).  The second point has absolutely no legs  to  stand upon.    The   East  Punjab  Holdings   (Consolidation   and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948, was enacted, in  the words of the long title annexed to the Act, to, provide  for compulsory  consolidation of’ agricultural holdings and  for the. prevention of fragmentation of agricultural holdings in the  State  of  Punjab.  Under s. 15 of the  said  Act,  the scheme  prepared by the Consolidation Officer shall  provide for the payment of compensation to any owner who is allotted a  holding  of less market value than that of  his  original holding and for the recovery of compensation from any  owner who is allotted a holding of greater market value than  that of  his original holding.  There is no provision in the  Act

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

empowering the Consolidation Officer to deprive a person  of any  part of his property without allotting to him  property of equal value or paying him compensation if he is  allotted a  holding  of less market value than that of  his  original holding.  In the present case it is not disputed that  while the  respondents were allotted 123 kanals and 18  marlas  of ’A’  Grade land on a quasi permanent basis by the  Custodian and   later  confirmed  by  the  Central   Government,   the consolidation  proceedings  gave him only 50 kanal 8  and  7 marlas  of ’A’ Grade land, and 34 kanals and 1 marla of  ’B’ Grade  land.   The area given under the  consolidation  pro- ceedings  is  admittedly  of less value  than  that  of  the holding  allotted to the respondents by the  Custodian,  and the Consolidation Officer has not paid any compensation  for the   deficiency.   This  unjust  situation  in  which   the respondents  have been placed is sought to be  supported  by learned   counsel  for  the  State  on  the  basis  of   the instructions given to the Consolidation Officer by the State Government.  There is no provision in the Act empowering the State Government to                             719 give  any  such instructions to the  Consolidation  Officer; nor  does   any  provision of the Act confer  on  the  State Government any power to make rules or issue notifications to deprive owners of land of any part thereof or to direct  the Consolidation  Officer  as  to how he  should  exercise  his statutory  duties.  Any such rule would be repugnant to  the provisions  of the Act.  That apart, no such statutory  rule empowering  the State Government to issue such  instructions has been placed before us.  Both here as well as in the High Court, learned counsel appearing for the State has not  been able  to  sustain the validity of such instructions  on  any legal   basis.   The  order  of  the  appropriate   officers confirming the ’scheme on the basis of the said instructions was obviously illegal and, therefore, was rightly set  aside by the High Court. In  the  result,  the, appeal fails and  is  dismissed  with costs. Appeal dismissed. 720