9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Right of the respondents to maintain the petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution. 2. Validity of the directions issued by the State Government and the legality of the scheme formulated by the Consolidation Officer based on those instructions. Analysis: Issue 1: The respondents, members of a joint Hindu family and evacuees from Pakistan, were allotted land in 1950 by the Custodian of Evacuee Property. The Consolidation Officer proposed a scheme in 1955 that would substitute the allotted land with lesser value land. The respondents filed a petition in the High Court under Art. 226 of the Constitution challenging the scheme. The Court considered whether the respondents had a legal right to maintain the petition. The Supreme Court referred to previous judgments and statutory provisions to establish that the respondents had a valuable right in the property allotted to them. The Court highlighted that the respondents' interest was protected under the law until the property was vested in the Central Government. The Court also noted that a sanad was issued to the respondents, conferring absolute rights on them before the petition was disposed of by the High Court. Therefore, the respondents had sufficient interest in the property to sustain their petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution. Issue 2: The State Government issued directions to the Consolidation Officer, leading to a scheme that allotted the respondents land of lesser value without compensation. The Supreme Court analyzed the East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948, and emphasized that the Act did not empower the Consolidation Officer to deprive a person of property without providing equal value or compensation. The Court highlighted that the consolidation proceedings did not compensate the respondents for the deficiency in the land allotted to them. The Court found that the instructions given by the State Government were not supported by legal provisions and were repugnant to the Act. The scheme formulated based on these instructions was deemed illegal. Consequently, the High Court's decision to set aside the scheme was upheld, and the appeal was dismissed with costs. In conclusion, the Supreme Court affirmed the respondents' right to challenge the consolidation scheme under Art. 226 of the Constitution due to their valuable interest in the allotted property. Additionally, the Court declared the scheme formulated by the Consolidation Officer, based on improper instructions from the State Government, as illegal, leading to the dismissal of the appeal.
|
