Case: State Of Punjab Vs. Suraj Parkash Kapur, Etc

of Rehabilitation No. 8R or 9R, dated the 23rd July, 1949 and published in the Official Gazette of that State, dated the 7th August, 1949.and such property is acquired under the provisions of this Act and forms part of the compensation pool, the displaced person shall, so long as the property remains vested in the Central Government, continue in possession of such property on the same conditions on which he held the property immediately before the date of the acquisition, and the Central Government may, for the purpose of payment of compensation to such displaced person, transfer to him such property on such terms and conditions as may be prescribed.Section 12(1) if the Central Government is of opinion that it is necessary to acquire any evacuee property for a public purpose, being a purpose connected with the relief and rehabilitation of displaced persons, including payment of compensation to such persons, the Central Government may at any time acquire such evacuee property by publishing in the Official Gazette a notification to the effect that the Central Government has decided to acquire such evacuee property in pursuance of this section.A reference to R. 14(6) of the rules made under the Administration of Evacuee Property Act, 1950, will also be useful in this context. Under that rule the Custodian has no power to make any order after July 22, 1952, cancelling or varying the allotments made, subject to certain exceptions with which we are not concerned here. The result of these provisions is that under the Administration of Evacuee Property Act, the respondents became quasi-permanent allottees in respect of the land allotted them in 1950.After July 22, 1952 the Custodian ceased to have any authority to cancel or modify the said allotment. After the notification issued by the Government under S.12 of the Act. so long as the property remained vested in the Central Government, the respondents continued to be in possession of the property on the same conditions on which they held the property immediately before the date of acquisition, that is, under a quasi-permanent tenure. The contention that on the issue of the said notification, the respondents ceased to have any interest in the said land is without any foundation. It is, therefore, clear that on the date when the respondents filed the petition in the High Court they had a very valuable right in the properties allotted to them which entitled them to ask the High Court to give them relief under Art. 226 of the Constitution.6. That apart, on February, 23, 1956, the Central Government issued a sanad to the respondents conferring an absolute right on them in respect of the said properties. Though the sanad was issued subsequent to the filing of the petition, it was before the petition came to be disposed of by the High Court. At the time the High Court disposed of the petition, the limited right of the respondents had blossomed into a full fledged property right. In the circumstances of the case, the High Court was fully justified in taking note of that fact. From whatever perspective this case is looked at, it is obvious that the respondents have sufficient interest in the property to sustain their petition under Art.226 of the Constitution.7. Re. (2). The second point has absolutely no legs to stand upon. The East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948, was enaceted in the words of the long title annexed to the Act, to provide for compulsory consolidation of agricultural holdings and for the prevention of fragmentation of agricultural holdings in the State of Punjab. Under S. 15 of the said Act, the scheme prepared by the Consolidation Officer shall provide for the payment of compensation to any owner who is allotted a holding of less market value than that of his original holding and for the recovery of compensation from any owner who is allotted a holding of greater market value than that of his original holding. There is no provision in the Act empowering the Consolidation Officer to deprive a person of any part of his property without allotting to him property to equal value or paying him compensation if he is allotted a holding of less market value than that of his original holding. In the present case it is not disputed that while the respondents were allotted 123 kanals and 18 marlas of A Grade land on a quasi- permanent basis by the Custodian and latter confirmed by the Central Government, the consolidation proceedings gave him only 50 kanals and 7 marlas of A Grade land, and 34 kanals and 1 marila of B Grade land. The area given under the consolidation proceedings is admittedly of less value than that of the holding allotted to the respondents by the Custodian, and the Consolidation Officer has not paid any compensation for the deficiency. This unjust situation in which the respondents have been placed is sought to be supported by learned counsel for the State on the basis of the instructions given to the Consolidation Officer by the State Government. There is no provision in the Act empowering the State Government to give any such instructions to the Consolidation Officer; nor does any provision of the Act confer on the State Government any power to make rules or issue notifications to deprive owners of land or any part thereof or to direct the Consolidation Officer as to how he should exercise his statutory duties. Any such rule would be repugnant to the provisions of the Act. That apart no such statutory rule empowering the State Government to issue such instruction has been placed before us. Both here as well as in the High Court, learned counsel appearing for the State has not been able to sustain the validity of such instructions on any legal basis. The order of the appropriate officers confirming the scheme on the basis of the said instructions was obviously illegal and, therefore, was rightly set aside by the High Court.

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

Explanation:
0[ds]The result of these provisions is that under the Administration of Evacuee Property Act, the respondents became quasi-permanent allottees in respect of the land allotted them in 1950.After July 22, 1952 the Custodian ceased to have any authority to cancel or modify the said allotment. After the notification issued by the Government under S.12 of the Act. so long as the property remained vested in the Central Government, the respondents continued to be in possession of the property on the same conditions on which they held the property immediately before the date of acquisition, that is, under a quasi-permanent tenure. The contention that on the issue of the said notification, the respondents ceased to have any interest in the said land is without any foundation. It is, therefore, clear that on the date when the respondents filed the petition in the High Court they had a very valuable right in the properties allotted to them which entitled them to ask the High Court to give them relief under Art. 226 of the Constitution.6. That apart, on February, 23, 1956, the Central Government issued a sanad to the respondents conferring an absolute right on them in respect of the said properties. Though the sanad was issued subsequent to the filing of the petition, it was before the petition came to be disposed of by the High Court. At the time the High Court disposed of the petition, the limited right of the respondents had blossomed into a full fledged property right. In the circumstances of the case, the High Court was fully justified in taking note of that fact. From whatever perspective this case is looked at, it is obvious that the respondents have sufficient interest in the property to sustain their petition under Art.226 of the Constitution.7. Re. (2). The second point has absolutely no legs to stand upon. The East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948, was enaceted in the words of the long title annexed to the Act, to provide for compulsory consolidation of agricultural holdings and for the prevention of fragmentation of agricultural holdings in the State of Punjab. Under S. 15 of the said Act, the scheme prepared by the Consolidation Officer shall provide for the payment of compensation to any owner who is allotted a holding of less market value than that of his original holding and for the recovery of compensation from any owner who is allotted a holding of greater market value than that of his original holding. There is no provision in the Act empowering the Consolidation Officer to deprive a person of any part of his property without allotting to him property to equal value or paying him compensation if he is allotted a holding of less market value than that of his original holding. In the present case it is not disputed that while the respondents were allotted 123 kanals and 18 marlas of A Grade land on a quasi- permanent basis by the Custodian and latter confirmed by the Central Government, the consolidation proceedings gave him only 50 kanals and 7 marlas of A Grade land, and 34 kanals and 1 marila of B Grade land. The area given under the consolidation proceedings is admittedly of less value than that of the holding allotted to the respondents by the Custodian, and the Consolidation Officer has not paid any compensation for the deficiency. This unjust situation in which the respondents have been placed is sought to be supported by learned counsel for the State on the basis of the instructions given to the Consolidation Officer by the State Government. There is no provision in the Act empowering the State Government to give any such instructions to the Consolidation Officer; nor does any provision of the Act confer on the State Government any power to make rules or issue notifications to deprive owners of land or any part thereof or to direct the Consolidation Officer as to how he should exercise his statutory duties. Any such rule would be repugnant to the provisions of the Act. That apart no such statutory rule empowering the State Government to issue such instruction has been placed before us. Both here as well as in the High Court, learned counsel appearing for the State has not been able to sustain the validity of such instructions on any legal basis. The order of the appropriate officers confirming the scheme on the basis of the said instructions was obviously illegal and, therefore, was rightly set aside by the High Court.