Pala
Singh Vs. Union of India & Ors [1987] INSC 183 (22 July 1987)
RAY,
B.C. (J) RAY, B.C. (J) SEN, A.P. (J) CITATION: 1988 AIR 873 1987 SCR (3) 624
1987 SCC Supreme . 201 JT 1987 (3) 133 1987 SCALE (2)93
ACT:
Displaced
Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954: s. 24 Allotment of excess
land--Allottee acquiring proprietary rights--Chief Settlement
Commissioner--Whether competent to cancel allotment by Managing Officer.
Punjab
Package Deal Properties (Disposal) Act, 1976/Punjab Package Deal Properties
(Disposal) Rules, 1976---Rule 4--Package land in excess of entitlement
cancelled--Purchase by allottee/successors-in-Interest--Permissibility of Current
market price--Determination by Tehsildar (Sales).
HEADNOTE:
All
the surplus lands in the compensation pool of the Central Government as well as
the excess area in the occupation of allottees were transferred under a package
deal to the Punjab Government with effect from April 1, 1961.
In
October 1961 the Managing Officer, Rehabilitation Department detected that
there was excess allotment of land to the appellant in lieu of land left by him
in Pakistan. By an order dated February 21, 1962 he allowed the petitioner to
purchase the said excess area. The petitioner deposited the required amount in
the Treasury on March 6, 1962.
On
reference, the Chief Settlement Commissioner held that the excess land which
was found in October 1961 could not be sold by the Managing Officer under the
Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954 as under the
package deal this land had been transferred to the Punjab Government.
The
petitioner then made an application under s. 33 of the said Act to the Central
Government which was dismissed.
Thereupon
he moved a petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution before the
High Court, and contended that he is entitled to get the same land as he had
already deposited the price in accordance with the order of the Managing
Officer, and that the said purchase could not be can- 625 celled on the plea
that the land had already been transferred to the Punjab Government by the
Central Government under the package deal. The petition was opposed by the
respondent, who contended that the transfer of the land in dispute to the
petitioner was void ab initio as under the package deal it vested in the State
Government. The High Court held that the Chief Settlement Commissioner (Lands),
had jurisdiction to cancel the allotment even after conferment of the
proprietary right, that in view of the package deal the title to the land had
already passed to the Punjab Government in 1961 and no authority under the
Displaced Persons Act could make any order in regard to the sale of the land to
the appellant at a concessional rate, and that only the Punjab Government could
deal with the said land.
Dismissing
the appeal by special leave,
HELD:
1. The Chief Settlement Commissioner had duly and properly made the order. He
was competent under s. 24 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and
Rehabilitation) Act, 1954 to cancel the allotment of land in excess of the area
the petitioner was entitled to get under the provisions of the Act. [630F,
629E] Smt. Balwant Kaur v. Chief Settlement Commissioner (Lands), Punjab,
[1963] Punjab Law Reporter (Vol. 65) 1141 at 1187, approved.
2.
The excess land allotted to the appellant was package deal property vested in
the State of Punjab. As such the same could not be sold nor could it be allowed
to be sold to the petitioner-appellant by the Managing Officer under the
provisions of the Displaced Persons Act. The order of the Managing Officer,
was, therefore, wholly without jurisdiction inasmuch as the said property was
no longer in the compensation pool of the Central Government. [629CD] Ram
Chander v. State of Punjab, [1968] Current Law Journal (Punjab & Haryana)
668 approved.
3.
It is for the Government of Punjab to consider and decide whether the legal
representatives of the deceased appellant are entitled to purchase the said
excess land under the provisions of the Punjab Package Deal Properties
(Disposal) Act, 1976. The Punjab Package Deal Properties (Disposal) Rules, 1976
prescribe procedure as to how the lands in excess of the entitlement, which
have been can- celled, may be transferred to the allottees or their
successors-in-interest. Rule 4 lays down that the allottee or his legal
representatives will not be entitled to 626 have the excess land which was
cancelled on the ground of fraud, concealment or misrepresentation of material
facts.
It
is also provided in clause 8 of the said rules that the price of the land that
will be transferred shall be the current market price to be determined by the
Tehsildar (Sales). [630G, 63lAB]
CIVIL
APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1088 (N) of 1969.
From
the Judgment and Order dated 14.8.1968 of the punjab and Haryana High Court in
L.P.A. No. 95 of 1964.
A.
Minocha for the Appeallant.
Ms.
A. Subhashini, Mrs. S. Sun, C.V.S. Rao and P. Par- meshwaran for the
Respondents.
The
Judgment of the Court was delivered by B.C. RAY, J. This is an appeal by
special leave against the Judgment and Order made in L.P.A. No. 95 of 1964
dismissing the appeal holding that the land in question having already vested
in the Government of Punjab under package deal, the authority under the
Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954 had no
jurisdiction over lands in question.
Appellant,
Pala Singh, a displaced person, was allotted 9 standard acres and 12-1/4 units
of land in village Jhill, Tehsil and District Patiala in lieu of his land left
in Chack No. 204 in 1950. He got the same quantity of land in village Alipur
Arain on mutual exchange with an allottee of the said village. The appellant
was not allotted any land for the land left by him in village Santpura and
Jaffapur in Tehsil Phalia, District Gujarat. The area of Chack No. 204 R.B. was
described as a suburban area by the State Government. The appellant applied for
allotment in village Tripari Sayidan, a suburban of Patiala City. After due
verification from the records of the Rehabilitation Department at Jullundur,
the petitioner being found entitled to the suburban allotment to the tune of 10
standard acres and two units as also to a rural allotment of 2 standard acres
and 8 units was allotted 6 standard acres 12-3/4 units of land in Tri- pari
Sayidan. Proprietary right in respect of both these allotments, that is, at
Tripari Sayidan and village Alipur Arian were granted to him vide sanads dated
17th February, 1956.
627
In October 1961, it was detected that there was excess allotment of 6 standard
acres and 12-3/4 units in village Alipur Arian and accordingly the Managing
Officer, Rehabilitation Department by his order dated 21st February, 1962
allowed the petitioner to purchase the said excess area.
Petitioner
deposited the required amount in the Treasury on March 6, 1962. On March 27,
1962, i.e. 20 days thereafter the petitioner was served with a notice by the
respondent no. 3, Assistant Registrar-cum-Managing Officer asking him to appear
before the respondent no. 2, the Chief Settlement Commissioner, Civil
Secretariat. Jullundur to show cause why the order of the Managing Officer
allowing him to purchase the excess land should not be set aside, as it was a
case of double allotment. The respondent no. 2, the Chief Settlement
Commissioner, after hearing the petitioner passed an order holding that the
excess land which was found in October 1961 could not be sold by the Managing
Officer under the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act,
1954, as under the package deal this land had been transferred to the Punjab
Government. It was for the Punjab Government to decide if the said land would
be sold to the petitioner at the reserve price or not. The reference was
accordingly allowed and the order of the Managing Officer allowing the allottee
to purchase the said 6.12-3/4 standard acres in village Alipur Arian, Tehsil
District Patiala was set aside.
The
petitioner then made an application under Section 33 of the said Act to the
respondent No. 1, the Central Government against the said order. The said
application was dismissed by the respondent no. 1. Against these orders the
petitioner moved a petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of
India before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana under Civil Writ Petition No.
1804 of 1962 on the grounds inter alia that the petitioner is entitled to get
the same land as he had already deposited the price of the allotted land in
accordance with the order of the Managing Officer.
The
said purchase could not be cancelled on the plea that the land had already been
transferred to Punjab Government by the Central Government under package deal.
A
return was filed on behalf of the respondents stating inter alia that in lieu
of land to the extent of 6.12-3/4 standard acres allotted to him in village
Tripari Sayidan, an area to the same extent was to be withdrawn from his rural
allotment in village Alipur Arian. This however was not done through oversight
and the allottee was in possession of the both lands in villages Alipur Arian
and Tripari Sayidan. This resulted in double allotment to the petition- er. It
was also submitted therein that the Managing Officer wrongly allowed the
petitioner to purchase the said land in village Alipur Arian in February 1962.
The 628 order of the Managing Officer was without jurisdiction as by that time
property had gone out of the Compensation Pool and it vested in the State
Government. It was further averred that the transfer of the land in dispute to
the petitioner was void initio as under the package deal it vested in the State
Government. Respondent no. 2 has rightly cancelled the allotment of excess land
to the petitioner.
The
writ petition was dismissed by the learned Single Judge holding inter alia that
the Chief Settlement Commissioner (Lands) had jurisdiction to cancel the
allotment even after the conferment of the proprietary right referring to the
decision in the case of Smt. Balwant Kaur v. Chief Settlement Commissioner,
[1968] P.L.R. 1141 (F.B.). It was further held that the package deal came about
in April 1961 whereas the offer to purchase the excess land was made in
February, 1962. i.e. at a time when the land was no longer in the Central pool
but it vested in the State of Punjab.
The
Chief Settlement Commissioner was justified in cancel- ling the permission to
purchase given by the Managing Officer as the land had already been transferred
to the State of Punjab and the same ceased to vest in the Central Compensation
Pool.
Aggrieved
by the judgment and order dated 16th January, 1964 passed in C.W.P. No. 1804 of
1962 an appeal under clause X of the Letters Patent was preferred by the
petitioner. This was registered as L.P.A. No. 95 of 1964. On 14th August, 1968,
the Division Bench of Punjab High Court after hearing the parties held that
there was no denial by the appellant that in view of the package deal the title
to the land had already passed to the Punjab Government in 1961 and no
authority under the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act,
1954 could make any order in regard to the sale of land to the appellant at
concessional rate.
The
title had passed to the Punjab Government in 1961 and after that it was only
the Punjab Government who could deal with that land. It was further held that
there was no denial that the land in question was covered by the package deal.
The
only contention made by the appellant was that an appeal was filed in the
Supreme Court from the judgment in the case of Ram Chander v. State of Punjab,
[1968] Current Law Journal (Punjab & Haryana) 668 wherein the validity of
the package deal was upheld. It was held that if the appeal succeeds in this
Court then it would be up to the Chief Settlement Commissioner to review his
own orders in the wake of such decision of the Supreme Court in order to give
relief to the appellant. The appeal was accordingly dismissed.
629
It is against this judgment and order this appeal by special leave has been
filed.
It
appears from the letters dated 3.6.1961, 5.3.1962 as well as 23.3. 1963 issued from
the office of Chief Settlement Commissioner, Government of India that all
surplus lands as well as excess area in occupation of the allottees stood
transferred to the Punjab Government with effect from 1.4.1961 and the Punjab
Government paid the price of the lands at the rate of Rs.445 per standard acre
to the Central Government by half yearly installments in 6 installments within
a period of three years commencing from 1st April, 1961. So these lands are
package deal properties vested in the State of Punjab. It has been rightly held
in the Letters Patent Appeal confirming the order of the learned Single Judge
in the writ petition that since the excess land allot- ted to the appellant was
package deal property the same cannot be sold nor can it be allowed to be sold
to the petitioner-appellant by the Managing Officer under the provisions of
Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954. So the order of
the Managing Officer made in February, 1962 is wholly without jurisdiction
inasmuch as the said property was no' longer in the compensation pool of the
Central Government but it was a package deal property vested in the State of
Punjab. It has also been rightly held that the Chief Settlement Commissioner is
competent under Section 24 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and
Rehabilitation) Act 44 of 1954 to cancel the allotment of land in excess of the
area the petitioner is entitled to get under the provisions of the said Act.
This legal position has been settled by a decision of the Punjab and Haryana
High Court in the case of Ram Chander v. State of Punjab (supra) wherein it has
been held:- "In our opinion, the package deal has the effect of
transferring the property from the Central Government to the Punjab State and
the logical result which flows from it is that the Settlement Authorities as
delegates of the Central Government could not pass any orders under the
Act." It appears that the Civil Appeal No. 470 of 1969 which was filed
against the judgment and order passed in LPA No. 298 of 1966 was disposed of by
this Court (to which both of us were parties) on 29th July, 1986 by recording
the following order:- "In view of the judgment in Civil Appeal Nos.
2125(N)
of 1968 and 1832 of 1969, there is no reason to consider the question of law
raised by the State of Haryana in this 630 appeal. The appeal is accordingly
disposed of without expressing any opinion on the merits." It also appears
that this Court passed an order on 29th July, 1986 dismissing Civil Appeal Nos.
2125(N) of 1968 and 1832 of 1969 by recording the following order:- "There
is no merit in these appeals. By the judgment, the High Court has set aside the
sales and directed re-auction of the proper- ties. We entirely agree with the
reasoning and conclusion reached by the High Court. The appeals are accordingly
dismissed with no order as to costs." It is therefore clear and evident
that the judgment of the Punjab High Court rendered in the case of Ram Chander
v. State of Punjab & Ors. (supra) insofar as it relates to the validity of
the package deal, has been upheld by this Court.
So
there is no merit in this contention made on behalf of the appellant.
It
has also been held by the Full Bench of the Punjab High Court in the case of Smt.
Balwant Kaur v. Chief Settlement Commissioner (Lands), Punjab, [1963] Punjab
Law Reporter (Vol. 65) 1141 at 1187 that the Chief Settlement Commissioner was
competent to cancel or set aside the order of transfer even if the sanad was
granted or the sale deed had been executed and on such order being made the sand
or the sale deed will automatically fall with it.
On
a conspectus of these decisions the point is now well settled that the respondent
No. 2, the Chief Settlement Commissioner has duly and properly made the
impugned order of cancellation of the excess allotment made to the appellant.
It
appears that the petitioner has already made an application to the Government
for allotment to them of the said excess land on taking from them the
appropriate price.
It
has been further stated that Pala Singh had died during the pendency of this
appeal and he left his widow and four sons and daughters as his legal
representatives. It is for the Government of Punjab to consider and decide
whether the legal representatives of deceased appellant are entitled to
purchase the said excess land under the provisions of the Punjab Package Deal
Properties (Disposal) Act, 1976 and the rules framed there under.
It
is relevant to mention in this connection that the Government 631 of Punjab
amended the rules and the said amended rules have been titled as Punjab Package
Deal Properties (Disposal) Rules, 1976. These rules lay down elaborate
procedure as to how the lands in excess of the entitlement which have been
cancelled may be transferred to the allottees or their successors-in-interest.
It also appears from Rule 4 that the allottee or his legal representatives will
not be entitled to have the excess land which was cancelled on the ground of
fraud, concealment or misrepresentation of material facts.
It
is also provided in clause 8 of the said rules that the price of the land that
will be transferred shall be the current market price to be determined by the
Tehsildar (Sales).
For
the reasons aforesaid there is no merit in the appeal and as such it is
dismissed with costs, assessed at Rs. 1,000.
P.S.S.
Appeal dismissed.
Back