SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1957 Supreme(SC) 72

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
24th May 1957
S.R. DAS, C.J.I., IMAM, GAJENDRAGADKAR AND SARKAR, JJ.
Prem Singh and others, Appellants
Versus
Deputy Custodian General, Evacuee Property and others Respondents.
Civil Appeal No. 327 of 1957.
Advocates appeared
Mr. Harnam Singh, Senior Advocate, (Mr. Harbans Singh, Advocate, with him) for Appellants; Mr. B. Sen Senior Advocate, (Mr. R. H. Dhebar, Advocate, with him), (for No. 1); Mr. Achhru Ram, Senior advocate, (Mr. G. C. Mathur, Advocate, with him), (for No. 2) and Mr. Sohan Lal Pandhi, Advocate (for Nos. 3 & 4), for Respondents.

Advocates:
ACHHRU RAM, B.SEN, G.C.MATHUR, Harnam Singh, R.H.Dhebar, Sohan Lal Pandhi

Headnote:Article 226-Error apparent on face of record-Certiorari-Administration of Evacuee Property Act, 1950, Ss. 117, 55 and 56-Powers of Deputy Custodian General in revision.

       Held: (1) Accepting but, without deciding, that the Deputy Custodian Generals powers in revision under S. 27 of the Act were strictly limited to the powers of the Custodian to cancel an allotment, the order passed by the Deputy Custodian-General on 18-8-1953 under S. 27, canceling the allotment made in favour of the appellant was valid, because on the relevant date, i.e. 17-7-1952 (date of Custodians order against which revision was taken), the Custodian had the power to cancel it under Cls. (h), (i) of Rule 1 framed by the Punjab Government in exercise of powers delegated to it by the Central Government under S. 55 (1) to make rules under S. 56 (2) CJ. (I).

       (2) There were no errors apparent on the face of the record, so as to enable the Court to issue writ of certiorari for quashing the orders of the Deputy Custodian-General. The errors pointed out if they were errors at all, were mostly errors of fact and even if the errors might, by any stretch of argument, be said to constitute errors of law, they were nothing more than mere errors of law, which might be corrected by a Court of Appeal, but which did not render the order a "speaking order" showing a clear ignorance or disregard of the provisions of the law, as to be amenable to correction by a writ of certiorari.

Judgement

S.R. DAS, CJI. - The appellants have filed this appeal on a certificate of fitness granted on 25th May 1956, by the High Court of Punjab under Art. 133 of the Constitution. The appeal is directed against the judgment and order of the said High Court pronounced on 18th October 1955. By that order the said High Court dismissed the application made by the appellants to the said High Court under Art. 226 praying for a writ in the nature of a writ of certiorari to call for the records and to quash the order of the Deputy Custodian General passed on 18th August 1953, whereby he cancelled the allotment of lands in the village of Ratauli, Tehsil Jagadhari, District Ambala, made to the appellants on 7th June 1950.

2. The events which led up to the present appeal may now be briefly stated. The appellants are refugees from Rawalpindi. On the partition of the country the appellants migrated to India abandoning 273 acres 6 kanals of first grade land irrigated by perennial canals situate in Chak No. 205/R. B., Tehsil Jaranwala, District Lyalpur. In 1947 the appellants were given two units of lands in two villages, Todarpur and Naharpur, in Tehsil Jagadhari, District Ambala on a temporary basis. At the time of quasi-permanent allotment in November 1949, the appellants were given 133 acres 15 1/4 units of land in two villages Khandua and Naharpur, which lands were of the second grade.

On 20th February 1950 the appellants allotment in Khandua was cancelled and the whole of 133 acres 15 1/4 units of land was allotted to them in village Naharpur. In order to accommodate a group of people known as Brij Lal group in village Naharpur the allotment made to the appellants was cancelled on 6th June 1950, and the appellants were directed by the Director General, Relief and Rehabilitation (Additional Custodian), hereinafter referred to as the Director General, to be shifted from village Naharpur to the villages of Jaurian and Kottarkhans in Tehsil Jagadhari in the District of Ambala, where the lands were of the first grade.

It appears that on 7th June 1950, the appellants went post-haste to the headquarters of the Relief and Rehabilitation department protesting against their eviction from Naharpur in view of the improvements alleged to have been made by them in that village and prayed that they should be retained there. In this application the appellants did not pray for an allotment of land in village Ratauli. The Director General Directed the Revenue Assistant to make a report on that application.

On the same date the Revenue Assistant promptly reported that the appellants were sitting allottees of village Naharpur, which was a village of second grade, that the appellants were entitled to first grade lands and that consequently they had been ordered to be shifted from the second grade village to the first grade villages of Jaurian and Kotarkhana in Tehsil Jagadhari. With these remarks he concluded the report with the word "submitted."

In the margin of this report, however, the following words were endorsed: "Area also is reserved for Railway Workshop in village Ratauli. It approved Prem Singh and Narain Singh may be allotted land in the village." It is not easily understandable how, if the land in village Ratauli was reserved for Railway Workshop, such reserved land could be recommended for allotment to the appellants. There is an endorsement by the Director General of the word "Approved" on the same date.

The extreme expedition with which the order of 6th June 1950 was cancelled and a fresh allotment was made in favour of the appellants in villages Ratauli, which they did not ask for, evidently created some doubts in the mind of the Deputy Custodian General as to the regularity of the procedure when he made his order on 18th August 1953. Be that as it may, he did not decide the matter on the strength of such doubts.

After the Director General had "approved" the report a sanad was issued on 13th July 1950, in favour of the appellants in respec
































































Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top