1961 (3) TMI 149 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:

1. Consolidation of Land Allotments
2. Cancellation of Allotments
3. Jurisdiction of Authorities under the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954
4. Applicability of Sections 12 and 19 of the 1954 Act
5. Protection of Rights under Section 10 of the 1954 Act
6. Application of Rule 74 of the Displaced Person (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Rules, 1955
7. Entrustment and Powers of Managing Officers under Section 17 and Rule 102

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Consolidation of Land Allotments:

The appellants, displaced persons from West Pakistan, were granted quasi-permanent allotment of land in Raikot, Ludhiana District. Their father, also a displaced person, was allotted land in another village, Humbran. The father applied for consolidation of his land with the appellants' land in Raikot but died during the process. The Assistant Custodian rejected the application due to unavailability of land in Raikot, and subsequent revisions were dismissed.

2. Cancellation of Allotments:

During the pendency of the appellants' revision application, the Additional Custodian cancelled the allotment of fourteen quasi-permanent allottees in Karodian and re-allotted this land to the appellants, substituting their original allotment in Raikot. The fourteen allottees successfully sought a review, resulting in the restoration of their original allotments, which automatically cancelled the appellants' allotment in Karodian.

3. Jurisdiction of Authorities under the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954:

The Deputy Custodian General dismissed the appellants' application on the ground that his jurisdiction had been taken away by the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954, and the notification issued thereunder. The appellants challenged this decision, arguing that the Custodian General still had jurisdiction.

4. Applicability of Sections 12 and 19 of the 1954 Act:

Section 12 of the 1954 Act allows the Central Government to acquire evacuee property for rehabilitation purposes, extinguishing the Custodian's rights over such property. Section 19 grants the managing officer or managing corporation the power to cancel allotments, overriding any other laws. The Court held that the Custodian's powers were nullified by the 1954 Act and that only managing officers or corporations could deal with the property post-acquisition.

5. Protection of Rights under Section 10 of the 1954 Act:

The appellants argued that their rights were protected under Section 10 of the 1954 Act, which allows displaced persons to continue in possession of allotted property under certain conditions. However, the Court noted that the appellants had lost possession of the Raikot land before the notification, thus disqualifying them from protection under this section.

6. Application of Rule 74 of the Displaced Person (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Rules, 1955:

The appellants contended that Rule 74, which prohibits the transfer of disputed property, was violated. The Court clarified that Rule 74 applies to final compensation settlements and not to quasi-permanent allotments. Moreover, it applies to proceedings under the 1954 Act, not under the Administration of Evacuee Property Act.

7. Entrustment and Powers of Managing Officers under Section 17 and Rule 102:

The appellants argued that the managing officers' powers were limited to properties entrusted to them. The Court held that the 1954 Act's provisions prevail over the Administration of Evacuee Property Act, and managing officers had the exclusive power to cancel allotments. Rule 102 permits cancellation for specified reasons, including "any other sufficient reason," thus not restricting the managing officers' powers.

Conclusion:

The appeal was dismissed, with the Court holding that the appellants' rights were not protected under the relevant provisions of the 1954 Act due to their loss of possession before the notification. The Custodian General's jurisdiction was effectively nullified by the 1954 Act, and only managing officers or corporations could deal with the property post-acquisition. The Court made no order as to costs, noting that the delay by the Custodian General contributed to the situation.