Chand Kumar Kapur Vs. Chief Settlement
Commissioner Punjab & Ors [1983] INSC 198 (12 December 1983)
MISRA RANGNATH MISRA RANGNATH DESAI, D.A.
MISRA, R.B. (J)
CITATION: 1984 AIR 463 1984 SCR (2) 1 1983
SCALE (2)1057
ACT:
Displaced Persons (Compensation &
Rehabilitation ) Act, 1954.
East Punjab Administration of Evacuee
Property Act, 1947.
Displaced person-Allotted land in semi-urban
area- Policy decision taken to impose cut in allotment-Managing officer whether
competent to cancel allotment.
Evacuee Property (Central) Rules 1950, Rule
14(6).
Action taken prior to promulgation of
rule-Whether valid.
Interpretation of Statues-Displaced
persons-Payment of compensation-Undue enrichment-Whether permissible.
HEADNOTE:
The appellant, an evacuee from West Pakistan
was allotted about six standard acres of land as displaced person under the
quasi-permanent scheme in a semi-urban area. In 1952, the Director of
Rehabilitation submitted a proposal to the Financial Commissioner, Relief and
Rehabilitation-cum-Custodian 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 other 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 rule 14(6) of the Evacuee
Property (Central) Rules, 1952 was amended, which provided that in respect of
quasi-permanent allottees cancellation was permitted only on grounds set out in
rule 14(6) A few allottees challenged the order implementing the policy
decision of cut of 50% but the writ petition was however dismissed and the
order was confirmed by this Court.
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 Division Bench.
In the appeal to this Court on the question,
as to whether the Managing Officer operating under the Displaced Persons
(Compensation & Rehabilitation) Act, 1954 could cancel the allotment made
in favour of a displaced person under the East Punjab Administration of Evacuee
Property Act, 1947, and the schemes framed there under.
2 Dismissing the Appeal,
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 sub clause (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 be compenstated on the footing that they had
left behind lands in Pakistan and lands of people who had left India for
Pakistan had become evacuee properly 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 adjustment. Such an adjustment is just
and fair. [5 C-D] In the instant case, there were 117 allottees in villages
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 treatment should be shown to these twenty allottees 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 was concerned. [5 E-F]
Basant Ram v. Union of India, [1962] 2 Suppl. S.C.R.
733; Hukum Chand etc., 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.
CIVIL APPELLATE 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 Judgment of the Court was delivered by
RANGANATH MISRA, J. The only question which arises for consideration of this
Court in this appeal by way 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 Persons (compensa- 3 tion & Rehabilitation) Act, 1954 (`1954 Act'
for short), could cancel the allotment made in favour of the appellant under
the East Punjab Administration of Evacuee Property Act, 1947 (`Punjab Act' for
short) and schemes framed there under.
Appellant, an evacuee from West Pakistan
owned agricultural land in District Lyuallpur. As a displaced person he was
allotted a little more than six standard across of land in Village Kotla,
Tehsil Jullundur 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 Alladingpur 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 earlier, a similar
cut of 50% should be applied. This was on the footing that these lands 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 the Notification made on March 24, 1955, under s. 12 of the
Act, the lands already allotted to displaced persons ceased to be evacuee
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
curt and a writ petition 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 catch one was
negatived and the appeal was dismissed. It may be stated 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.
4 Admittedly, the lands allotted to the
appellant in village Kotla are close to the Municipal limits of the town of
Jullundur and this being a question of fact, has not rightly been disputed before
us. The High Court has found :
"It deserves notice that the proceedings
for the enhancement of the valuation of the land of the village and the
consequent raising of the cut to 50 per cent were initiated as early as the
year 1951. After due verification by the subordinate Rehabilitation Authorities
by actual visits on the spot, the proposal to enhance the cut was finally
approved by the Director General of Rehabilitation and subsequently received
the seal of approval by the order of the Governor on the 3rd February 1952. The
significant 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.O.
1290 dated the 22nd July 1952..... It would thus appear that at the time when
the proceedings were initiated and the final order dated the 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 law. The order dated the 3rd of February
1952.
therefore, did not have to conform to a
provision which has been introduced subsequently. It was not the contention of
the learned counsel that sub-clause (6) above said is to take effect
retrospectively nor do we find anything in the said rule to accord any such
effect to 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. Strong reliance had been placed by appellant's counsel on Basant Ram v.
Union of India, Hukum chand etc. v. Union of India & Ors (2) and Hoshnak
Singh v. Union of India & Ors(3). In Basant Ram's case this Court decided
that the approval of the Central Government on the 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 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
consideration was whether rules framed by it could be made given retrospective
operation by the Central Government when the statute either expressly or by
necessary implication had not authorised rules 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 footing that they had left behind lands in Pakistan and lands of people who
had left India for Pakistan had become evacuee property and the compensation to
the displaced persons could be by settlement of such lands. In a case of his
type no one can look for undue enrichment. Once it is held as a fact that the
properties 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 is just and fair. It is appropriate to take note of a very
significant feature, namely, there were 117 allottees in these villages which
were declared sub-urban and 97 of these allottees 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
differential treatment should be shown to these twenty allottees 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 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 see 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 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. We make no
order for costs in this appeal.
N.V.K. Appeal dismissed.
Back
