‘ .
_ CHAND KUMAR KAPUR: ‘CHIEF SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER PUNJAB & ORS. . December 12, 1983 a [D. A. DEsAl, R.B. Misa AND RANGANATH MUSRA, JJ. ] Displaced Persons (Compensation & Rehabilitation) Act, 1954.
East Punjab Administration of Evacuee Property Act, £947,
Displaced person—Allotted land in ‘semi-urban area—Policy decision ' taken to impose cut in allotment~Managing officer whethek competent fo cancel, allotment.
~ Evacuee Property (Gentral) ‘Rules 1950, Rule 14(6)..'s
Action taken prior to promulgation of rule— Whether valid : ~ ,
Interpretation of Statues—-Displaced persons—Payment of compensat-
~ ton—Undue enrichment— Whether ‘permissible. yO . °
The appellaat, an evacuee from West Pakistan was - allotted about six statidard acres of land as displaced person under the quasi-permanent scheme: in a sémi-urban area. In 1952, the Director of Rehabilitation submitted.a propo- sal to the Financial Commissioner, Kelief and Rehabilitation-cum—Custodign that premium cut of 5 villages, be enhanced from 18.3/4% to 50% as similarly
‘situated villages carried a cut of 50%. ‘The proposal also suggested., that’ in ‘two ether neighbouring villages where no- premium cut had been applied earlier, a similar cut.of 50% should be applied. This cut was imposed: on the footing that these lands abutted the Municipal area and had semi-urban
" character. This proposal was accepted _ by :the Commissioner as also by the
Governor before 22nd July, 1952 when rulel4(6): of the Evacuee Property
: (Central) Rules, 1952 was amended, which provided that. in respect of quasi- permanent allottees caricellation. was permitted only: on grounds set out in
_ rule 14(6)
A few allottees challenged the order implement ing the. policy decision of cut of 50% but the writ petition was however dismissed and. the order was tonfirmed by this Court. : LO, . . a
- When steps were taken to. enforce the cut, a writ Petition was : moved . by the appellant. A Single Judge of the High Court dismissed the petition, and , this order was confirmed by the Divisiori Bénch.
in the appeal to this Court on the question, as to. whether the Managing
; Officer Operating under the Displaced Persons (Compensation & Rehabilita- ...
tion) Act, 1954 could cancel the allotment made in favour of a displacea person under. the..East Punjab- -Administration . of. - Eyacuer «Property; Act, 19d7 aha the schemes. framed thereunder. os
. . 2 | ©, SUPREME COURT REPORTS, ~ 11984] 2 8.c.R.
Dismissing the Appeal, , hd »
HELD: 1. At the time when the proceedings were initiated and the final order dated the 3rd February, 1952 was passed, the relevant provisions of subclause (6) of rule 14 were not yet on the statute book and the action taken prior to their promulgation was perfectly valid and in accordance with law. [4 D}
2. There is no justification to allow the benefit claimed by the appellant. The respondent will however not be precluded from entertaining the offer by the appellant, if made, to pay the extra premium and/or any further demand with a view, to obtaining a lawful settlement of the entire property without cut on the basis of the initial allotment. [5 G-H}
3. People who were uprooted from Pakistan and became displaced persons were to bé compenstated on the footing that they had left behind lauds in Pakistan and lands of people who had left India for Pakistan had become eyacuee propery and the compensation to the displaced persons could be by settlement of such lands. In such cases no one. can look for undue enrichment.
Once it is held as a fact that the properties are semi-urban and when this had not been kept in view when original allotment had been made; it should always be possible to make an adjust ment. Such an adjustment is just and fair. [5 C-D}
In the instant case, there were 117 allottees in -yillages which were declared semi-urban and 97 of these allottees paid the extra premium and were allowed to acquire the entire land given to them. Twenty allottees including he appellant took steps.to challenge the decision regarding levy of premium as also cut*in the allotments. There is no justification as to why any differential treament should be shown to these twenty allottees particu- Jarly when’ all the 117 allottees stood .at par so far as the application of the decision contained in the order dated Februry 3, 1952 was concerned. [5 E-F]
‘ pasant Ram v. Union of India, [1962] 2 Suppl. S.C.R. 733; Hukum Chand
-ete., v. Union of India & Ors., [1973] 1 S.C.R. 896 referred to. Hoshnak Singh v. ;
Union of India & Ors., [1979] : 3 S:C.R. 399; distinguished. Cv. APPaLLaTe JurISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 2057 of 1970.
~ From the Judgment and order dated 5th March, 1970 of the Punjab & Haryana High Court at Chandigarh in L. P. A. No. 159 of 1968. * Harbans Lal and Vinoo Bhagat for the Appellant. S. K. Bagga for the Respondents. The Judginent of the Court was delivered by
RANGANATH Misra, J. The only question which arises for con-
_ sideration of this Conrt in this appeal by wey of special leave under Article 136 of the Constitution against the Judgment of the Punjab & Haryana High. Court in Letters Patent Appeal is as to whether the
- Managing Officer operating under the Displaced Pérsons (Compensa- a
C.K. KAPUR v. SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER (Ranganath Misra, J.) 73°
. tion & Rehabilitation) Act, 1954 (‘1954 Act’ for short), could cancel the allotment made i in favour of the appellant under the East Punjab - Administration of Evacuee Property Act, 1947 ( Punjab A Act’ for short)
and schemes framed thereunder. - land in District Lyallpur. As a displaced person he was-allotted a little more.than six standard acress of land in Village Kotla, Tehsil JutJundur in Punjab under the quasi-permanent scheme. In 1952 the Director of Rehabilitation submitted a proposal to the Financial Commissioner, .
Relief and Rehabilitation-cum-Custodian that premium cut of.5 villages, viz., Sufi, Pind, Dhin, Barring Khusropur and Alladinpur be enhanced from 18.3/4% to 50% as similarly situated villages near
Jullundur City carried a cut of 50%. This proposal also suggested that _-in-two other neighbouring villages, viz., Shekhpind and Kotla where. no premium cut had been applied’ eartier, a similar cut of 50% should © be applied. This was on the footing . that these fands abutted the Jullundur Municipal area and had semi-urban character. This proposal]
/was accepted by the Commissioner as also by the Governor of the
State “before 2nd July 1952 when rule 14 (6) - of the Evacuee Property
(Central) Rules, 1950 was amended and in respect of quasi-permanent allottees ‘cancellation was permitted only on grounds set out in rule 14(6). The allottees of Sheikh Pind and Kotla villages challenged the orders implementing the policy decision. of cut of 50%, before the hierarchy of rehabilitation authorities and moved the High Court by filing a writ petition. When that writ petition was dismissed, special] leave. was obtained from this Court and the Court found that after coming into force of the 1954 Act and thé Notification made.on March
24, 1955, under s. 12 of the Act,the lands already allotted to displaced - | persons ceased to be evacue? property and had become part of the pool created under the 1954 Act. Power was not available to be exercised
; under the 1950 Act.
Subsequently steps were taken to enforce the cut and a writ peti- tion was moved before the High Court. When the single judge dismissed _the petition, and appeal was taken to the Division Bench and four: contentions were advanced on behalf of the appellant and cach one.
was negatived and the appeal was dismiss¢d.. It may be stated that that appeal was heard along with 19 others raising common questions of
‘fact and law: Against this confirming decision of-the Division Bench, leave having been obtained from this Court, the present appeal has been filed. :
Appellant, an evacuee from West Pakistan owned agricultural .
“~
- High Court has found :
"Admittedly, the lands allotted to the appellant i in village Kotla are close te the Municipal limits of the town of Jullundur and this being a question of fact; has not rightly: ‘been i disputed b before us. The
Pa s tt deserves notice that the proceedings for the enhance-_ ‘ ment of. the yaluation of the land of the village and the . + consquent. raising of the cut to 50 per cent were initiated’ as early .as the year 1951. After due verification by. the sub- . ordinate Rehabilitation Authorities by actual visits on the spot, the proposal to enhance the cut was fi inally, approved by the Director Generai of Rehabilitation ‘and subsequently » teceived the’ seal of approval by the order of the Governor on the 3rd February 1952. The significdnt fact ’is ‘that sub-clause (6) of rule 14 on which main reliance is being placed was substituted for the old sub-rule by notification -No. S.R.0. 1290 dated the 22nd July 1952... Itwould thus ‘appear that at the time when the proceedings Were initiated and the final order dated thie 3rd February 1952, was passed, . ‘the relevant provisions of sub- clause: (6) of rule 14 were not. yet on the statute book and the action taken prior to their promulgation was thus perfectly valid and in accordance with — jaw: The order dated the. 3rd of: February 1952, therefore, did not: have to conform ‘to’ a. provision which has been, .in:toduced subsequently. “It was not the contention of the learatd, counsel that sub-clause (6): above said is to take effect retrosp: ctive aly nor do we find anything in the said rule to accord any such effect td the same,’
*
On: the aforesaid finding the High Court held that the scheme stood altered,
We approve of this view taken by the High | Court.
Union of India,®) Hukum chand etc. v. Union of India & Ors.) and
Hoshnak Singh v. Union‘of Inaia & Ors(3). In Basant Ram’s case this . :
"SUPREME COURT REPORTS a (U1984], 28.0.
Steong . ., réliance had been placed by appellant’s counsel on Basant Ram y.
Court decided that the approval of.the Central Government onthe -
- basis of which the Notification of March 24, 1955 had been made was __ misconceived inasmuch as with the coming into force of the 1954 Act.: .
the Administration of Evacuee Property Act, 1950 (Central Act 31
" (1) [1962] 2 Suppl. S.C.R.°733 © (2) [1973] 1 S.C.R, 896 7 -¢ (3) [1979] 3 S.C.e, 399 cof
.
oo
‘ ts
C.K, KAPUR ¥. SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER (Ranganath Misra, J. ). 5 of 1950) stood repealed and the evacuee property, subject to the Act . of 1950, had become a part of the compensation pool under the:Act of
1954. We agree with the analysis of that decision ‘by the High - Court.
So far as the second case is concerned, the question that-fell.for con=, sideration was whether, rules ffamed by it could be given retrospective operation by the Central Government, when the statute either expressly or by necessary, implication had not authorised tules to be, made with .
retrospective effect. So far as the last case is concerned, the facts which
“gave rise to the dispute were very: different and-the’ ratio thereof has no application to the present set of facts.
In dealing with a matter: of this type the broad perspective of - the scheme has to be ‘kept in view. People who were uprooted from ‘Pakistan and became displaced persons were to be compensated on the efooting that’ they had. left behipd lands.in Pakistan and lands of - people who had left India for Pakistan had become-evacuee property. and the corapensation to-the displaced persons could be by settlement’ _ of such lands. In a case of his. type no one: can idok for undue . enrichment. Once i it-is held as a fact, ‘that. the propertiés are semi-' urban and admittedly: this had not been kept in view when original allotment had been. made .it should’ always be possible to make an adjustment. Such an adjustment i is just and fair. It is ‘appropriate ‘to take, note of a very significant feature, ‘namely, there weré 117 allottees - in these Villages whjch were declared sub-urban and 97 of these allot-
’ tees paid, the extra premium, and,were allowed to acquire the entire
‘land given to them; ‘Twenty allottees including the appellant took steps ‘to challenge the decision regarding levy Of premium as also cut in the allotments: There is “no justification as to, why any differntial treatment Should be shown to these twenty alfottees particularly when. all the 117 allottees stood at par so.” far. as the application of the
’ decision contained in the order dated February 3, 1952 i is concerned.’
We do not know if under the changed circumstance the- same benefit is
"available to be extended to the appellant now, viz., permitting him to’
_ pay the extra premium at present. More than 30 ‘years have passed and with the passage of such a length of time changed situations must have. come to prevail. We sée no justification to.accept the appeal _ -and allow the benefit claimed by the appellant. But our dismissal-of © the: appeal should not preclude the respondent authorities. from —
_ entertaining the offer by-the. appellant, if made, to-pay the extra pre- mium and/or any further demand with a view to obtaining a lawful settlement of the entire property without cut on the basis of the initial allotment. We make no order for costs. in this appeal. ”
NVK O° - an / “Appeal dismissed.