Case: Dunichand Hakim And Others Vs. Deputy Commissioner (Deputy Custodian Evacuee Property

is granted for a definite period and it is only fair to give the lessee a notice before his lease is terminated before the expiry of the stipulated period, whereas the allottee of land under the quasi permanent settlement stands on a different footing. Be that as it may, the question seems to be academical in the present case, as the petitioners were given full opportunity to put forward their case before the allotment was cancelled.17. The order of the Deputy Custodian General dated the 2nd December, 1953, rejecting the petitioners revision supports this. That order shows that the Assistant Custodian issued a notice to the petitioners to show cause why the allotment of first grade land while they were all second grade claimants, should not be cancelled. The petitioners appeared before him on the 9th May, 1952. Their statements were recorded and they admitted that their land was second grade, where upon the Assistant Custodian made a report to the Deputy Custodian made recommending that the allotment be cancelled. The Deputy Custodian acting upon this report cancelled the petitioners allotment in village Dhakala on the 1st July, 1952.18. This point was raised before the Deputy Custodian General also but he held that Section 12 of the Central Act did not require notice of cancellation to be issued to the petitioners and in any case the order in question was not without jurisdiction, as there had been substantial compliance with the provisions of rule 14. It was contended, however, that the order of cancellation was made by the Deputy Custodian and that order was bad as he did not give the petitioners any notice before passing the order. The Assistant Custodian who was acting under the orders of the Deputy Custodian had already heard the petitioners and recorded their statements, and there was no point in hearing the petitioners again when they had already been heard.19. The Deputy Custodian had filed an affidavit to the effect that a notice was given to the petitioners to explain on the 9th May, 1952, as to why their allotment should not be cancelled, that they appeared on the 9th May, 1952, that their statements were recorded and that their allotments were cancelled on the 1st July, 1952.20. We hold, therefore, that there is no merit in the contention that the order of the Deputy Custodian was without jurisdiction as it was passed in the absence of the petitioners and without hearing them. Even if the order of cancellation was passed during the operation of a stay order, the order of cancellation cannot be challenged on that ground.21. The next contention urged is that the order of cancellation is opposed to the order of the Ministry of Rehabilitation dated the 14th May, 1953, whereby the authorities were prohibited from cancelling allotments if the orders in respect of them had not been implemented by the 22nd July, 1952. We think this contention is also devoid of merit. It appears that the question of amendment of sub-rule 6 of rule 14 of the Central Rules was the subject of correspondence between the Central Government and the East Punjab Government reference is made in the letter of the 14th May, 1953, to a Notification issued by the Central Government on the 22nd July, 1952, according to which orders cancelling allotments passed after a specified date were to be implemented only if they fall under the category of underserved and excessive allotments.22. It is stated that the object of this Notification was to stabilize quasi permanent allotments, but upon a representation by the State Government the provisions restricting the implementation of orders passed before the specified date was relaxed and the State Government was given powers to implement their orders by the 22nd July, 1952. The Central Government after further consideration decided that all orders passed before the 22nd July 1952, but not implemented until the 6th May, 1953, shall be kept in abeyance except in the following cases :(a) Undeserved allotment,(b) Excessive allotment.(c) ............................23. It was further decided that no other order hereafter be implemented until a decision to the contrary is issued by the Central Government. The Letter added that the Ministry of Law was being consulted with a view to making the necessary amendments in the Rules. In pursuance of this decision the East Punjab Government issued instructions to the Deputy Commissioners. There was some dispute about the meaning of the word Implementation but before a further reference was made to the Central Government, the Punjab Government decided that among allotees of land status quo should be maintained and that if as a result of an order of cancellation passed before the 22nd July, 1952, the possession of an allottee had not been given over by the 6th May to the new allottee, it shall remain with the original allottee.24. This correspondence merely shows that the Central Government enunciated a certain policy on the subject of amending sub-rule 6 of rule 14, pending the advice of the Law Ministry, but apparently the policy was not given effect to and no rule was framed in pursuance of the decision.It is clear, therefore, that the central Government merely issued interim instructions pending the amendment of the rule but no rule was framed to give effect to those instructions which in consequence did not acquire any statutory force. Mere stay of implementation of the orders contained in the statement of policy did not wipe out the effect of the cancellation.Sub-rule 6 to rule 14 was subsequently added but not as it was intended to be with the result that the old orders of cancellation stood such as orders based on grounds other than undeserved or excessive allotments, once the order of cancellation was passed by the Deputy Custodian, the petitioners lost their right to possession and even if the letter of the 14th May, 1953, is treated as a direction by the Central Government under Section 54, it cannot have the effect of restoring what had been lost.25.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 0

Explanation:
0[ds]The various evacuee property Ordinance passed by the Central or the State Government from time to time which were eventually replaced by the Central Act No. XXXI of 1950, further confirm that the policy underlying the legislation was to provide for the administration of evacuee property for the time being and to manage it until such time as a final decision was reached by the Government of India as to its ultimate14 (2) which is one of the rules framed under Section 56, specifies the circumstances under which leases and allotments can be cancelled or varied. Sub-rule 3 says that the Custodian may evict a person who has secured an allotment by misrepresentation or by fraud or if he is found to be in possession of more than one evacuee property or in occupation of accommodation in excess of his requirements.Sub-rule (4) requires the Custodian before passing any order of cancellation or variation of the terms of lease, to serve the person or person concerned with a notice to show cause against the order proposed to be made and to afford him a reasonable opportunity of being heard. No notice is provided for cancellation of an allotment under theobvious answer to this differentiation appears to be that a lease is granted for a definite period and it is only fair to give the lessee a notice before his lease is terminated before the expiry of the stipulated period, whereas the allottee of land under the quasi permanent settlement stands on a different footing. Be that as it may, the question seems to be academical in the present case, as the petitioners were given full opportunity to put forward their case before the allotment wasAssistant Custodian who was acting under the orders of the Deputy Custodian had already heard the petitioners and recorded their statements, and there was no point in hearing the petitioners again when they had already beenDeputy Custodian had filed an affidavit to the effect that a notice was given to the petitioners to explain on the 9th May, 1952, as to why their allotment should not be cancelled, that they appeared on the 9th May, 1952, that their statements were recorded and that their allotments were cancelled on the 1st July, 1952.We hold, therefore, that there is no merit in the contention that the order of the Deputy Custodian was without jurisdiction as it was passed in the absence of the petitioners and without hearing them. Even if the order of cancellation was passed during the operation of a stay order, the order of cancellation cannot be challenged on thatcorrespondence merely shows that the Central Government enunciated a certain policy on the subject of amending sub-rule 6 of rule 14, pending the advice of the Law Ministry, but apparently the policy was not given effect to and no rule was framed in pursuance of the decision.It is clear, therefore, that the central Government merely issued interim instructions pending the amendment of the rule but no rule was framed to give effect to those instructions which in consequence did not acquire any statutory force. Mere stay of implementation of the orders contained in the statement of policy did not wipe out the effect of the cancellation.Sub-rule 6 to rule 14 was subsequently added but not as it was intended to be with the result that the old orders of cancellation stood such as orders based on grounds other than undeserved or excessive allotments, once the order of cancellation was passed by the Deputy Custodian, the petitioners lost their right to possession and even if the letter of the 14th May, 1953, is treated as a direction by the Central Government under Section 54, it cannot have the effect of restoring what had been lost.