Back
Supreme Court Of India
JOGINDER SINGH
Versus
Deputy Custodian General of Evacuee Property
Decided On : August 4, 1961
EVACUEE PROPERTY - CANCELLATION OF ALLOTMENT - POWER OF CUSTODIAN AND CUSTODIAN-GENERAL - ADMINISTRATION OF EVACUEE PROPERTY RULES, 1950, R. 14 (6).
Fact of the Case:
The appellants, displaced persons from West Pakistan, were allotted rural evacuee property on a quasi-permanent basis. Later, the allotment was shifted to another village, consolidating the family's lands. Respondents, also displaced persons, had their allotment cancelled and sought to have it restored, claiming their original allotment was rural and not urban. The Custodian-General, on revision, set aside the allotment in favor of the appellants.
Finding of the Court:
The High Court dismissed the appellants' petition under Art. 226, holding that the Custodian-General had the power to restore the land to the respondents and that R. 14 (6) did not preclude such action. On appeal, the Supreme Court held that the Custodian and Custodian-General had no power to cancel an allotment of rural evacuee property on a quasi-permanent basis except upon the grounds set out in R. 14 (6) of the Administration of Evacuee Property Rules, 1950, as amended on 22/07/1952.
Issues: 1. Whether the Custodian and Custodian-General had the power to cancel an allotment of rural evacuee property on a quasi-permanent basis except upon the grounds set out in R. 14 (6) of the Administration of Evacuee Property Rules, 1950, as amended on 22/07/1952? 2. Whether the allotment in favor of the appellants was itself bad because the cancellation of the allotment in favor of the respondents was in Contravention of R. 14 (6)?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court held that the amended R. 14 (6) placed a limitation on the powers of the Custodian to cancel allotment of rural evacuee property on a quasi permanent basis, and that an allotment of such land could be cancelled only in the circumstances specified in that sub-rule. Therefore, subsequent to 22/07/1952, the Custodian of Evacuee Property would have the power to cancel an allotment only upon a ground which falls within the exceptions enumerated in sub-r. 6. Making of restitution is not within the exceptions and, therefore, it will have to be said that the inherent power of the Custodian to cancel an allotment for making restitution has been abrogated by the amended sub-rule. 2. The Court declined to consider the argument that the allotment in favor of the appellants was itself bad because the cancellation of the allotment in favor of the respondents was in Contravention of R. 14 (6), as the respondents had not specifically raised it in their statement of case.
Final Decision: The appeal was allowed, and the orders of the High Court and the Deputy Custodian-General were quashed.
Judgment
MUDHOLKAR
( 1 ) IN this appeal under Art. 133 (1) (c) of the Constitution the question which arises for consideration is whether after 22/07/1952 the Custodian of Evacuee Property in the State of Punjab or the Custodian-General healing an appeal from an order made by the Custodian after 22/07/1952 has the power to cancel an allotment of rural evacuee property on a quasi-permanent basis except upon the grounds set out in R. 14 (6) of the Administration a of Evacuee Property Rules, 1950 as amended by notification No. S. R. O. 1290, dated 22/07/1952.
( 2 ) THE circumstances under which this question arises may now be briefly stated. The appellants and their father Nand Singh were displaced persons from West Pakistan and got allotment of some land in the village Raikot, District Ludhiana on a temporary basis. Later, each of the appellants 1 to 3 was allotted 8standard acres of land on a quasi-permanent basis while Nand Singh, their father who was entitled to 41 standard acres and 7 units and to whom land to that extent had been temporarily allotted in the village Raikot was allotted the same acreage of land in the village Hambran which is situate at a distance of 25 or 30 miles from Raikot. Nand Singh made an application for revising the order under which this was done but he died in the year 1951, during the pendency of that application. The appellants as his legal representatives continued the application. That application was rejected and a revision application made against the order passed thereunder was also rejected on the ground that after 22/07/1952 the Additional Custodian was not competent to cancel an allotment made in favour of any person except upon the grounds set out in R. 14 (6) of the Evacuee Property Rules.
( 3 ) RESPONDENTS 4 to 9 owned lands in Chak No. 127, C. B. Jaranwala, District Lyallpur and are also displaced persons. They were, therefore, allotted certain lands in the village Karodian as quasi-permanent allottees. Subsequently some revenue papers were received from Pakistan from which it appeared that they were entitled to urban allotment. They, therefore, brought this matter before the Deputy Commissioner exercising the powers of Deputy Custodian. Thereupon he cancelled the allotment in their favour sometime in the year 1952 and proposed to the Additional Custodian, who was also acting as Director of Relief and Rehabilitation, for the allotment of the lands which were originally allotted to the respondents to others.
( 4 ) APPELLANT No. 2 Gopal Singh on behalf of his father Nand Singh applied to the Director of Relief and Rehabilitation that the allotment in the name of his father Nand Singh might be shifted from the village Hambran to the village Karodian. The Additional Custodian not only allowed the application of Gopal Singh and shifted the allotment of Nand Singh to the village Karodian but he also shifted the entire allotment of the appellants Nos. 1 to 3 from the village Raikot to the village Karodian with the result that the lands allotted to the family were consolidated in the same village. The appellants thereupon obtained possession of the Karodian lands.
( 5 ) RESPONDENTS 4 to 9 were allotted urban lands, which according to the appellants are more valuable and are of a superior quality. They did not prefer an application for review of the order of cancellation of their earlier allotment or of the order passed by the Additional Custodian allotting their lands to the appellants.
( 6 ) SIX months later, however, respondents 4 to 9 preferred an application before the Additional Custodian stating therein that the land abandoned by them in West Pakistan was rural and that their allotment should be shifted back to the village Karodian. To this application they did not make the appellants parties. The Additional Custodian held that he could not cancel the allotment in favour of the appellants in view of R. 14 (6) of the Evacuee Property Rules already referred to. He, however, recommended the
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
