1978 Supreme(SC) 242

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
JASWANT SINGH, R.S. PATHAK AND A.P. SEN, JJ.
Sadhu Singh (dead) by LRs, Appellants
Versus
Union of India and others, Respondents.
Civil Appeal No. 2419 of 1968, D/- 27-9-1978.
Advocates appeared
M/s S. K. Mehta, P. N. Puri, K. R. Nagaraja and G. Lal, Advocates, for Appellants; Mr. K. L. Narula, Dist. Attorney, Haryana and Mr. R. B. Datar, Advocate and Mr. Girish Chandra, Advocate (for No. 1) and Mr. E. C. Agarwala, Advocate ( for No. 14), for Respondents.

Headnote:

Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Rules, 1955 – Rule 102 – Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954 – Section 19 – East Punjab Evacuees (Administration of Property) Act, 1947 – Sections 22, 58 – Constitution of India, 1950 – Allotment of Land – Pattas – Litigation culminating in the present appeal (by certifcate under Article 133 (1) (b) of the Constitution) which is directed against the judgment and order of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in C.W. N. setting aside the allotmentn made by Naib Tehsildar-cum-Managing Officer, in favour of Madan Mohan and others, and orders of the Assistant Settlement Commisioner and Chief Settlement Commissioner respectively on the finding that "no part of holding which formed part of the land allotted to respondent No. 14, could, during the subsistence of such allotment and without its cancellation, be allotted to anyone else" has had a very chequered career extending over 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). – 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 – Whether the parcels of land which already stood allotted in favour of the respondent vide allotment order could be allotted by the Naib Tehsildar-cum-Mangaging Officer, Fatehabad, in favour of Madan Mohan Singh and others without notice to the respondent and without affording him an opportunity of being heard. – Held, 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 parcels of land which already stood allotted in the name of the respondent to the appellants. – Action on the part of the Naib Tehsildar-cum-Managing Officer was evidently in flagrant violation of the clear and unequivocal provisions of law. – Court 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, court think that it will be eminently just and fair if the appellants are allowed to retain Rectangle No. 134 on which their house also stands and Rectangle No. 133 is given over to the respondent. – Counsel for the parties also agree to this course being adopted in the interest of justice. – Respondent shall be at liberty to approach settlement authorities for allotment of some other suitable land in lieu of Rectangle No. 134 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. – Allotment of the area to which the respondent may be found entitled shall, as far as possible, be made in the vicinity of the area already held by him. Subject to this modification, the rest of the judgment and order of the High Court will stand. – Appeal Disposed of.