1957 (5) TMI 49 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the Deputy Custodian General's order canceling the appellants' allotment.
2. Applicability and validity of Rule 14(6) of the Administration of Evacuee Property Rules.
3. Errors apparent on the face of the record in the Deputy Custodian General's order.
4. Equitable distribution and proper rehabilitation of displaced persons.
5. Preference in allotment between appellants and respondents.

Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of the Deputy Custodian General's Order Canceling the Appellants' Allotment:
The appellants challenged the order of the Deputy Custodian General dated 18th August 1953, which canceled their allotment of 133 acres 15 1/4 units of land in village Ratauli. The High Court dismissed their application for a writ of certiorari to quash this order. The Deputy Custodian General's order was based on the grounds that the appellants were not sitting allottees of village Ratauli and that the land was initially reserved for a Railway Workshop. The court found that the Deputy Custodian General had valid reasons for the cancellation, emphasizing the equitable distribution and proper rehabilitation of displaced persons.

2. Applicability and Validity of Rule 14(6) of the Administration of Evacuee Property Rules:
The Full Bench of the High Court addressed two questions: whether Rule 14(6) was ultra vires and whether it applied to orders canceling allotments made before its amendment. The Full Bench answered the first question in the negative, affirming the rule's validity. It also held that orders passed by the Custodian or Custodian General before the amendments were valid. The Deputy Custodian General's powers were deemed to align with those of the Financial Commissioner as the Custodian, thus validating the cancellation order.

3. Errors Apparent on the Face of the Record in the Deputy Custodian General's Order:
The appellants argued that the Deputy Custodian General's order contained glaring errors apparent on the face of the record. They cited errors such as the assumption that respondent No. 2 had a preferential claim to allotment in Ratauli and the lack of approval from the Financial Commissioner for their allotment. The court, referencing the principles from Hari Vishnu v. Ahmad Ishaque, concluded that these were not errors of law but rather factual discrepancies. The errors pointed out did not constitute manifest errors apparent on the face of the record, thus not warranting a writ of certiorari.

4. Equitable Distribution and Proper Rehabilitation of Displaced Persons:
The court emphasized the need for equitable distribution and proper rehabilitation of displaced persons. The Deputy Custodian General's order was justified under clauses (h) and (i) of the Punjab Rule, which allowed cancellation for equitable distribution and proper rehabilitation. The court noted that the appellants were not colonists of Sahapur District and did not have a temporary allotment in Ratauli, while respondent No. 2's predecessor had a temporary allotment and was entitled to be accommodated in Tehsil Jugadhari.

5. Preference in Allotment Between Appellants and Respondents:
The appellants contended that if anyone were to be ousted from Ratauli, it should be respondents Nos. 3 and 4, who had obtained their allotment during the pendency of the dispute. The court found no reason to disturb the allotment to respondents Nos. 3 and 4, as the appellants were bigger allottees. The Rehabilitation authorities had exercised their discretion, and the allotment to respondents Nos. 3 and 4 was not disturbed for cogent reasons stated in the Deputy Custodian General's order. The court upheld this decision, emphasizing that it was not a matter to be decided under Article 226.

Conclusion:
The appeal was dismissed with costs, affirming the validity of the Deputy Custodian General's order and the equitable distribution of land for the proper rehabilitation of displaced persons. The court found no grounds for interference under Article 226, as the errors cited by the appellants were not manifest errors apparent on the face of the record.