SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
J.C. SHAH, V. RAMASWAMI AND A.N. GROVER, JJ.
The Estates Development Ltd. (In liquidation) through its Official Liquidator, Appellants
Versus
Union of India and others, Respondents.
Civil Appeal No. 1576 of 1966, D/- 22-9-1969.
Advocates appeared
Mr. Bishan Narain, Sr. Advocate, (M/s. S. K. Mehta and K. L. Mehta, Advocates of M/s. K. L. Mehta and Co. with him), for Appellants; M/s. Harbans Singh and R. N. Sachthey, Advocates, for Respondents.
Constitutiton of India,1950 - Article 226 - Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954 - Section 24 - Company - Sale and purchase of land - Consolidation area allotted - Appellant company was incorporated with its registered office in city dealing in sale and purchase of land as its substantial business - By a sale deed executed company purchased 646 kanals, 9 marlas of land from for a sum - Land was located in village District, in West Pakistan - Out of consideration for sale, a sum was left with company for payment to previous mortgagees and the balance of money was paid to Harjit Singh before Sub-Register at time before the Sub-Registrar at time of registration - There was consolidation of holdings in village Bohani and as a result of consolidation area allotted to company came to 23 kanals and 5 marlas - Out of this company sold 9 1/2 kanals a Jat of village forby registered sale deed, dated - Another portion of 220 kanals and 15 marlas was sold on for to one and his sons – Held, It was pointed out that these notes were made for purposes of exchange of jamabandi and document did not depict state of affairs as which was material date - It is not necessary to examine this document in detail for Court are of opinion that appeal must be allowed and order of Chief Settlement Commissioner must be quashed on ground that there is no finding of Chief Settlement Commissioner that Company had obtained allotment of land "by menas of fraud, false representation or concealment of any material fact" - Such a finding is a condition precedent for taking action - Condition imposed by section is mandatory and in absence of any such finding Chief Settlement Commissioner had no jurisdiction to cancel allotment made to company - For these reasons Court hold that appeal should be allowed and judgment of Division Bench dated in Letters Patent Appeal should be reversed and judgment of Shamsher Bahadur, J. dated quashing order of Chief Settlement Commissioner dated should be restored - Appeal allowed.
Judgment
RAMASWAMI, J. :- In the month of August, 1942 the appellant company (hereinafter called the Company ) was incorporated with its registered office in the city of Jullunder dealing in sale and purchase of land as its substantial business. By a sale deed executed on November 24, 1944 the company purchased 646 kanals, 9 marlas of land from Harjit Singh for a sum of Rs. 32,326/-. The land was located in village Monanpura of District Sheikupura, now in West Pakistan. Out of the consideration for the sale, a sum of Rs. 9000/- was left with the company for payment to the previous mortgagees and the balance of the money was paid to Harjit Singh before the Sub-Register at the time before the Sub-Registrar at the time of registration. On the basis of the registered sale deed the company was allotted 27 standard acres and 11 1/2 units of land in village Bohani, Tehsil Phagwara, District Kapurthala in the year 1950 in lieu of the land abandoned in Pakistan. A sanad No. K2/4/8 dated March 9, 1950 was issued in favour of the company. There was consolidation of holdings in village Bohani and as a result of consolidation the area allotted to the company came to 23 kanals and 5 marlas. Out of this the company sold 9 1/2 kanals to Mohan Singh, a Jat of village Bohani for Rs. 1,900.00 by registered sale deed, dated May 22, 1956. Another portion of 220 kanals and 15 marlas was sold on September 12, 1958 for Rs. 10,012/- to one Mehnga Singh and his sons. It was later discovered that the company had been allotted less area of land than it was entitled to as a result of consolidation operations and so an additional area of 24 kanals was allotted to the company in village Bohani to make up the deficiency. On August 30, 1960 the Managing Officer, respondent No. 3, made a report, Annexure C, to the Chief Settlement Commissioner, Respondent No. 2 recommending cancellation of the allotment of land to the company and consequently the grant of permanent rights to it. The company was heard by the Chief Settlement Commissioner and thereafter the Chief Settlement Commissioner rejected the registered sale deed and balance sheets and relying on the jamabandi, annexure X, came to the conclusion that at the time of partition the company did not own any land in Pakistan nor was it in occupation of any such land. By his order dated February 27, 1961 respondent No. 2 set aside the permanent rights acquired by the company to the extent of 27 standard acres, 11 1/2 units and also cancelled the quasi-permanent allotment of the land made in the name of the company. On March 29, 1961 a revision petition was filed by the Company to the Central Government, respondent No. 1. But the revision petition was dismissed on May 10, 1961. On June 8, 1961, the company filed a writ petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution praying for grant of a writ to quash the order of the Chief Settlement Commissioner, dated February 27, 1961. The writ petition was allowed by Shamsher Bahadur J. But the respondent took the matter in appeal under cl. 10 of Letters Patent to a Division Bench which reversed the judgment of the learned single Judge and ordered the writ petition to be dismissed.
2. Section 24 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954 (44 of 1954) (hereinafter called the Act) states:
"(1) The Chief Settlement Commissioner may at any time call for the record of any proceeding under this Act in which a Settlement Officer, an Assistant Settlement Officer, an Assistant Settlement Commissioner, an Additional Settlement Commissioner, a Settlement Commissioner, a managing officer or a managing corporation has passed an order for the purpose of satisfying himself as to the legality or propriety of any such order and may pass such order in relation thereto as he thinks fit.
(2) Without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing power under sub-section (1)if the Chief Settlement Commissioner is satisfied that any order for payment of compensation to a displa
SupremeToday
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.