SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
4th May, 1961.
J.L. KAPUR, K. SUBBA RAO, M. HIDAYATULLAH, J.C. SHAH AND RAGHUBAR DAYAL, JJ.
State of Punjab and another, Appellants
Versus
Suraj Parkash Kapur, etc., Respondents.
Civil Appeal No.349 of 1959.
Advocates appeared
M/s. B.K. Khanna and D. Gupta, Advocates, for Appellants.
EAST PUNJAB HOLDINGS (CONSOLIDATION AND PREVENTION OF FRAGMENTATION) ACT, 1948 - S. 15 - DISPLACED PERSONS (COMPENSATION AND REHABILITATION) ACT, 1954 - S. 10, 12 - CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, ART. 226 - RIGHT TO PROPERTY - QUASI-PERMANENT ALLOTTEE - RIGHT TO MAINTAIN PETITION UNDER ART. 226 - CONSOLIDATION OF HOLDINGS - INSTRUCTIONS BY STATE GOVERNMENT TO CONSOLIDATION OFFICER - VALIDITY.
Fact of the Case:
The respondents, evacuees from Pakistan, were allotted 123 kanals and 18 marlas of A Grade land in lieu of the lands left by them in Pakistan. The State Government issued a notification under S. 14 of the East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948, declaring its intention to make a scheme for the consolidation of the holdings. The Consolidation Officer proposed a scheme allotting the respondents 50 kanals and 7 marlas of A Grade land and 34 kanals and 1 marla of B Grade land, which was of lesser value than the land originally allotted to them. The respondents filed a petition in the High Court under Art. 226 of the Constitution challenging the scheme.
Finding of the Court:
The High Court allowed the petition and directed the Consolidation Officer to proceed with the matter in accordance with law. The State appealed to the Supreme Court.
Issues: 1. Whether the respondents had a legal right to maintain the petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution. 2. Whether the directions issued by the State Government to the Consolidation Officer were valid.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The respondents had a valuable right in the property allotted to them under the evacuee law, which entitled them to seek relief under Art. 226 of the Constitution. 2. The State Government had no power to issue instructions to the Consolidation Officer, and the scheme prepared by the Consolidation Officer on the basis of those instructions was illegal.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed.
Judgment
SUBBA RAO, J. : This appeal by certificate is preferred against the order of the Punjab High Court dates November 9, 1956, setting aside the order of the Consolidation Officer and directiny him to proceed with the matter in accordance with law.
2.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 standard kanals and 7 standard marlas of A Grade land, and 34 standard kanals and 1 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 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 propounded 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, l957, allowed the said objection and issued a direction to the Consolidation Officer to proceed with the matter before him in accordance with law.
3. 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 within his rights to formulate the scheme on the basis of those instructions.
4. 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 Constitution. The right that can be enf
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.