Case: Chief Settlement Commissioner, Rehabilitation Department, Punjab and Ors., etc Vs. Om Prakash and Ors. etc

2. Nanak Chand owned agricultural lands in Bahawalpur State now forming part of West Pakistan. He also owned some property at Kot Kapura, Tehsil Faridkot, District Bhatinda now located in India. Nanak Chand had in normal course of business come to Bhatinda where he died in June, 1947 leaving behind three sons, Om Parkash, Sat Narain and Ram Parshotam who are the respondents in this appeal. As a result of the partition of India the land originally owned by Nanak Chand and after his death by his sons in Bahawalipur State had to be abandoned. After the partition of India the three respondents migrated to India and filed separate claims in accordance with law and obtained allotment of certain area in village Kot Kapura, District Bhatinda in lieu of the land abandoned by them in Pakistan. The Revenue Authorities allotted an area measuring 206.8 1/2 standard acres in village Kot Kapura, District Bhatinda. After the allotment was made one Rur Singh filed a complaint before the Managing Officer that these respondents had received double allotments in village Kot Kapura. The complaint was examined by Shri Shankar Das Katyal, Managing Officer who held that Shri Rur Sing failed to substantiate the allegation of double allotment. But the Managing Officer came to the conclusion that Nanak Chand although he had died long before the partition of the country must be treated as a displaced land holder for the purpose of allotment of land. The reason given was that his name continued to be shown in the Jamabandi as the owner of the abandoned land in Pakistan. In consequence of this finding a large portion of the land allotted to the three respondents was cancelled by the Managing Officer by his order dated September 18, 1961. The three respondents preferred an appeal before the Assistant Settlement Commissioner and a revision petition before the Chief Settlement Commissioner, Punjab but the appeal and revision petition were both dismissed. In dismissing the revision petition the Chief Settlement Commissioner, relied upon paragraph 17 of Tarlok Singhs Land Resettlement Manual, 1952 Edition page 180 which was to the following effect:Even where a displaced land holder in whose name the land stands in the records received from West Punjab has died, the allotment is made in the name of the deceased. In the fard taqsim, therefore, the entry will be in the name of the deceased land holder, Possession is ordinarily given to the heirs but there must be regular mutation proceedings before the entry in column 3 of the fard taqsim is altered in favour of the heirs.It was held by the Chief Settlement Commissioner that this paragraph related to all persons who continue to be shown as owners in the revenue records irrespective of the fact whether they had died before or after migration. In other words, the Chief Settlement Commissioner took the view that the land could only be allotted in the name of Nanak Chand even assuming that he had died in June 1947. Against the order of the Chief Settlement Commissioner the respondents filed a Writ Petition (Civil Writ No. 841 of 1961) before the Punjab High Court. The Writ Petition was allowed by the High Court by its order dated September 13, 1963 and the orders of the Chief Settlement Commissioner dated June 8, 1962, of the Assistant Settlement Commissioner dated December 26, 1961 and of the Managing Officer dated September 18, 1961 were all quashed by the grant of a writ in the nature of certiorari3. It is necessary at this stage to set out the provisions of the relevant statutes. Section 2 (b) of the East Punjab Evacuees (Administration of Property) Act, 1947 (East Punjab Act No. XIV of 1947) defines an evacuee as meaninga person ordinarily resident in or owning property or carrying on business within the territories comprised in the Province of East Punjab, who on account of civil disturbances, or the fear of such disturbances, or the partition of the country: (i) leaves, or has since the first day of March, 1947, left the said territories for a place outside India, or (ii) cannot personally occupy or supervise his property or business.Section 4 of that Act provided thatAll evacuee property situated within the Province shall vest in the Custodian for the purposes of this Act and shall continue to be so vested until the Provincial Government by notification otherwise directs.In pursuance of the powers conferred by the rules made by the State Government under Clauses (f) and (ff) of S. 22 (2) of the East Punjab Evacuees (Administration of Property) Act, 1947, the Custodian issued a notification No. 4892/S on July 8, 1949 regarding the conditions on which he was prepared to grant allotment of land vested in him under the provisions of the said Act to displaced persons.

Court's reasoning:
It is manifest that the expression displaced person or the word refugee has been used in the relevant enactments with reference to a person who has migrated to India as a result of disturbances or fear of disturbances or the partition of the country. Therefore if a person had died before the disturbances took place or he had never migrated to India as a result of the disturbances and he died before such migration he could not come within the meaning of the expression displaced person or the word refugee under the relevant statutory enactments.It is manifest in the present case that Nanak Chand died in June, 1947 long before the partition of the country and he did not abandon or was not made to abandon his land in Bahawalpur on account of the civil disturbances or the fear of such disturbances or the partition of the country5. It was, however, contended by Mr. D. R. Prem on behalf of the appellants that even though Nanak Chand never became a refugee or a displaced landholder, the allotment had to be made in his name because he was shown in the revenue records received from West Punjab as the owner of the land and there had been no mutation of the names of the respondents in the revenue records. Reference was made in this connection to paragraph 17 of Tarlok Singhs Land Resettlement Manual which has already been quoted7. In our opinion, however, it is possible to give a restricted interpretation to paragraph 17 of Tarlok Singhs Manual so as to make it consistent with the requirements of the statutory enactments. The intention of para. 17 is that it is applicable only to such persons who are land-holders at the time of their becoming displaced persons or refugees and who died afterwards before allotment could be made in their favour. In other words, the paragraph applies to a displaced land-holder who dies after having become a displaced person within the meaning of the relevant statutory enactments referred to above. The paragraph does not apply to a case of a person who was not a displaced land-holder at the time of his death. In the present case it is admitted that Nanak Chand never became a displaced land-holder. On the other hand, Nanak Chand died before he became a displaced land-holder and therefore para 17 of Tarlok Singhs Manual has no application to the facts of the present case9. The question arising in these two appeals is identical with the question of law in Civil Appeal No. 937 o 1965, For the reasons given in that judgment we hold that the decision of the High Court challenged in these appeals is correct and these appeals must be dismissed with costs.