9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Validity of the allotment of land in an urban area under the Displaced Persons Compensation and Rehabilitation Rules, 1955. 2. Constitutionality of Rule 2(h) of the Displaced Persons Compensation and Rehabilitation Rules, 1955 under Article 14 of the Constitution. Detailed Analysis: 1. The judgment involves an appeal regarding the validity of the allotment of land in an urban area under the Displaced Persons Compensation and Rehabilitation Rules, 1955. The appellant's father was allotted land in village Kharar, District Ambala, which was later allotted to the appellant. Disputes arose when respondents claimed prior possession of the land. The Assistant Settlement Commissioner canceled the allotment, stating that the land was within an urban area as per rule 2(h) of the Rules. The appellant appealed to the High Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, which was dismissed, leading to the appeal in the Supreme Court. 2. The main contentions raised in the appeal were twofold. Firstly, the appellant argued that the title obtained after the grant of a sanad was indefeasible, which was rejected based on a previous judgment. Secondly, the appellant contended that rule 2(h) of the Rules was unconstitutional under Article 14 of the Constitution. The rule defined an urban area as per specific criteria, including the limits of a corporation or municipal committee. The appellant claimed discrimination due to the retrospective operation of the rule, which was found to be unfounded by the Court. The Court held that the rule was validly made under the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954, and the discrimination alleged was not substantiated. The Court emphasized that every law must have a starting point and rejected the argument against the prospective operation of the rule. In conclusion, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, finding no merit in the arguments presented. The Court upheld the cancellation of the allotment based on the land being situated in an urban area as defined by the Rules. The challenge to the constitutionality of rule 2(h) under Article 14 was deemed unsubstantiated, and the Court emphasized the validity of rules made under the governing Act. The appeal was dismissed with costs, affirming the decision of the High Court.
|
