1968 (2) TMI 131 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:

1. Constitutionality of Section 20B of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954.
2. Validity of the memorandum dated March 14, 1963, communicated by the District Rent and Managing Officer, Jalalabad.
3. Restoration of property to the Municipal Committee, Jalalabad.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Constitutionality of Section 20B of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954:

The primary issue in this case was whether Section 20B of the Compensation Act was ultra vires the Constitution. The High Court had previously held in Kirpal Singh v. The Central Government that Section 20B was unconstitutional, violating Articles 14 and 19(1)(f) of the Constitution. However, the Supreme Court focused on Article 31(2), which mandates that any acquisition or requisition of property must serve a public purpose and provide for compensation. The Court noted that Section 20B did not serve a public purpose since it allowed the Central Government to deprive the rightful owner of their property based on expediency or practicability, without necessarily serving a public interest. Furthermore, the section failed to specify the principles or the manner in which compensation should be determined, thus violating Article 31(2). Consequently, the Supreme Court declared Section 20B ultra vires the Constitution.

2. Validity of the memorandum dated March 14, 1963:

The memorandum issued by the District Rent and Managing Officer, Jalalabad, stated that the disputed property had been transferred to the occupants and disposed of under the Compensation Act, with an assessed price of Rs. 6,542. The Municipal Committee contested this, arguing that only one of the five shops had been auctioned, and the sale had not matured. The High Court quashed this memorandum, and the Supreme Court upheld this decision, finding that the memorandum's basis was flawed due to the unconstitutionality of Section 20B.

3. Restoration of property to the Municipal Committee, Jalalabad:

The Municipal Committee had initially filed a civil suit in 1958, seeking a declaration that the disputed shops were their property and not evacuee property. The Deputy Custodian General had eventually ruled in favor of the Municipal Committee, ordering the release of the shops. Despite this, the Department refused to release the remaining shops, leading to the writ application under Article 226. The High Court directed the restoration of the property to the Municipal Committee, a decision upheld by the Supreme Court. The Court found that the rightful ownership of the Municipal Committee should be respected, and the property should be restored to them, given the invalidity of Section 20B.

Conclusion:

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals, confirming the unconstitutionality of Section 20B of the Compensation Act and upholding the High Court's decision to quash the memorandum and restore the property to the Municipal Committee, Jalalabad. The Court emphasized the need for legislative measures to align with constitutional provisions, particularly regarding property rights and compensation.