9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Interpretation of Rule 73(2)(ii) of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Rules, 1955. 2. Legal obligation of Chief Settlement Commissioner to allot excess land. 3. Application of Punjab Package Deal Properties (Disposal) Act, 1976. Analysis: Issue 1: Interpretation of Rule 73(2)(ii) The case involved a dispute regarding the interpretation of Rule 73(2)(ii) of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Rules, 1955. The High Court ruled in favor of the allottees, stating that the Chief Settlement Commissioner was obligated to allot excess land to them upon payment. However, the Supreme Court referred to a previous decision by a Constitution Bench, which concluded that the rule confers discretion on the Settlement Commissioner and does not create a legal right for excess land allotment. The Supreme Court held that the interpretation advocated by the allottees would defeat the purpose of the Rules by benefiting those who secured excess allotments at the expense of rightful claimants. Therefore, the High Court's judgment on this issue was overturned. Issue 2: Legal obligation of Chief Settlement Commissioner The Chief Settlement Commissioner had canceled the allotment of excess land made by mistake to the original allottees. The High Court upheld this cancellation, and the Supreme Court affirmed this decision. It was noted that the judgment of the High Court regarding the cancellation of excess land allotment remained undisturbed. The Supreme Court emphasized that the purpose of compensating those affected by partition should not be undermined by rewarding those who gained undue advantage through mistakes. Issue 3: Application of Punjab Package Deal Properties Act The allottees attempted to introduce a plea based on the Punjab Package Deal Properties (Disposal) Act, 1976, during the appeal in the Supreme Court. However, the Supreme Court rejected this plea as it was not raised in the original writ petition or argued in the High Court. The Court deemed it inappropriate to allow the allottees, who had benefited from an undeserved advantage for 30 years, to introduce a new plea at that stage. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, the High Court's orders were set aside, and the Chief Settlement Commissioner's order was reinstated. The appellants were directed to pay the costs of the appeal to the original allottees. In conclusion, the Supreme Court clarified the interpretation of Rule 73(2)(ii), affirmed the cancellation of excess land allotment, and dismissed the application of the Punjab Package Deal Properties Act. The judgment highlighted the importance of upholding the purpose of compensating those affected by partition and preventing undue advantages from mistakes in land allotments.
|
