Case: RAMESH PARSRAM MALANI AND ORS Vs. THE STATE OF TELANGANA REPRESENTED BY THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR AND ORS

One Parsram Ramchand Malani, father of the appellant, was resident of Sindh in the present-day Pakistan andafter partition, came to settle in Hyderabad. The father of the appellant asserted that he was owner of 83.11 acres of land in Sindh. Such land was verified vide an order passed by Settlement Claim Officer, Bombay on November 22, 1952 (copy submitted by the appellant during the course of the arguments). On the basis of such order, the father of the appellant applied for 200 acres of land in lieu of 83.11 acres of land left by him in the West Pakistan (copy submitted by the appellant during the course of the arguments). It is on the basis of such application that 40.4 standard acres of land (323.10 local acres) was allotted in District Hyderabad East, Village Bata Singaram, measuring 32.12 standard acres (262.11 local acres) and in Hyderabad West, Village Boinapally measuring 7.8 standard acres (60.39 local acres). There is no dispute between the parties till such allotment. Such allotment was made prior to commencement of the Displaced Persons (Compensation & Rehabilitation) Act, 1954 . Therefore, to regularise such allotment, another letter was issued on March 24, 1956 after commencement of the Act. The father of the appellant did not raise any claim for allotment of additional land till his death on August 10, 1988. It may be mentioned that Rule 51 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation & Rehabilitation) Rules, 1955 provides for scale of compensation in the form of land in accordance with the Land Allotment Scheme in the States of Punjab and Patiala and the East Punjab States Union as set out in Appendix XIV. A perusal of Appendix XIV would show that against area abandoned of 83 standard acres, the entitlement is allotment of 45.8¾ acres. It has also come on record that the father of the appellant, the displaced person, sold the entire land allotted to him soon after allotment3. The appellant addressed a letter to the CCLA on March 15, 2001 claiming allotment of 43.7 standard acres against balance of verified claim. The CCLA addressed the letter to the Settlement Officer, Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India on May 5, 2001 but no response was received from the Ministry of Home Affairs. On February 21, 2003, the appellant made another representation to the CCLA pursuant to which CCLA allotted the land measuring 19.26 standard acres (148.3 local acres) in Survey No. 301 to 308, 325 to 328 and 331 part in favour of the appellant on February 26, 2003, which is the subject matter of present appeal4. The orders of CCLA were stayed by a memo of Government of Andhra Pradesh dated March 20, 2003. The Secretary to Revenue Department in the Government of Andhra Pradesh initiated suo moto proceedings in respect of six cases of allotment of evacuee property in Hyderabad and Ranga Reddy District. Subsequently, a show-cause notice was issued to the appellant on August 20, 2003. The appellant filed writ petition before High Court of Andhra Pradesh challenging the show-cause notice and the stay order dated March 20, 2003. The High Court disposed of the writ petition on November 14, 2003 with a direction to the appellant to approach the Revisional Authority. The Revisional Authority dismissed the revision filed by the State on June 28, 2006 holding that the allotment of land is in accordance with the Act5. The said order was challenged by the State through the District Collector, Ranga Reddy District by way of a writ petition before the High Court at Hyderabad. Such writ petition was allowed on February 12, 2016. It is the said order which is subject matter of challenge in the present appeal6. The High Court has, inter alia, found that CCLA was not the competent authority to make allotment of land, inter alia, for the reason that there was no delegation by the Central Government in his favour to make allotment and secondly, for the reason that the land stood transferred to the State Government on the basis of communication dated May 24, 1980 and was, thus, not available in compensation pool for allotment. Thirdly, the High Court also found that the claim of the appellant suffers from delay and laches.

Court's reasoning:
24. All evacuee property in terms of notification issued by the Central Government from time to time in terms of Section 12 of the Act forms part of compensation pool under Section 14 of the Act. Section 16 of the Act empowers the Central Government to take such measures as is considered necessary or expedient for the custody, management and disposal of compensation pool. The Circular dated May 23, 1980 relates to administration, management and disposal of compensation which is in terms of Section 16 of the Act. Section 16(2)(b) of the Act empowers the Central Government to constitute such authority or corporation for the purposes of sub-section (1) i.e. custody, management and disposal of compensation pool. The Central Government is competent to constitute any authority or corporation for the same purpose. Therefore, the transfer of land forming part of compensation pool to the State Government has legislative sanction in terms of Section 16(2)(b) of the Act25. Once the power of disposal has been conferred upon the State Government, and the manner of transfer stands crystalized in the circular, the expression disposal of land by the State Government will include transfer of title to the purchaser as the State Government could transfer only that much right which the owner i.e. the Central Government had. Therefore, disposal of land would mean transfer of land free from all encumbrances by the State Government except to the extent of 15% of the realised value as the share of contribution to the Central Government. It is between the Central Government and the State Government to regulate the transfer between them. The management and disposal of land to the State Government is in terms of Section 16 of the Act26. It is wholly immaterial that the language of letter issued by the Central Government to the Government of Punjab in the year 1961 is different from the language of the letter issued to the Government of Andhra Pradesh. The purpose of both the communications is transfer of evacuee land to the State Governments to give effect to the provisions of the Act for consideration which was lumpsum in the State of Punjab and on percentage basis in the State of Andhra Pradesh but the transfer of land is complete as far as Central Government is concerned28. The argument raised by Mr. Sibal that the Central Government has notified the authorities to give effect to the provisions of the Act, therefore, the Central Government has retained control and administration of the evacuee property, is misconceived. The land forming part of the compensation pool was transferred to the State Government and the officers of the State Government were entrusted with the functions of Managing Officer or Settlement Commissioner, as the case may be. The allotment of all evacuee land is governed by the Act, therefore, the officers competent to make allotment are the Managing Officers, whereas power of appeal and revision are to be exercised by the Settlement Commissioner or the Chief Settlement Commissioner. Such notifications facilitate the exercise of powers under the Act by the officers of the State Government in respect of land which stood transferred to the State Government. The CCLA in terms of the scheme of the Act has no power to make allotment of land as he exercises the appellate or revisional jurisdiction as a delegate of the Central Government. The power of allotment is vested with the Managing Officer only in terms of Section 17 of the Act29. The allotment was made by the CCLA as a delegatee of the Central Government. The Settlement Commissioner had no power to make allotment of land falling in compensation pool either before May 23, 1980 or thereafter. Since the land stood transferred to the State Government, the CCLA as a delegatee of the Central Government, could not deal with the land forming part of compensation pool which stood transferred to the State Government30. On this ground alone, the allotment made in favour of the appellant on February 26, 2003 cannot be sustained in view of the Division Bench judgment of Punjab and Haryana High Court in Ram Chander, as approved by this Court in Pala Singh. We find that the Central Government or its delegatee could not allot land after the same was transferred to the State as a part of the package deal31. However, we are unable to agree with the High Court that transfer of land to the State Government takes such transferred land out of compensation pool. The land transferred to the State Government continues to be part of compensation pool but it is required to be disposed of by the Officers of the State who have been conferred the powers of the Managing Officer or of the Settlement Commissioner for the settlement of the displaced persons alone. It is only after the displaced persons are settled, the State Government may utilize the land for other purposes32. We do not find any merit in the argument that there is no time limit for allotment of land to make good the verified claim. Rule 86 of the Rules will come into play if the displaced person has not raised any claim within the time period prescribed under Section 4 of the Act i.e. June 30, 1955 but once a claim has been filed by a displaced person, the successor-in-interest steps into his shoes and was required to raise his grievance in respect of allotment of lesser area or any other grievance arising out of a quasi-judicial order passed by the Regional Settlement Commissioner in the manner prescribed by the Act. Since the predecessor-in-interest of the appellant has not raised any grievance during his life time and for more than 13 years after his death by the appellant, therefore, the appellant cannot be permitted to agitate the issues which have attained finality. Rule 86 of the Rules is not a perennial source of allotment by the successor-in-interest but operates in respect of a successor-in-interest by a displaced person who has not filed claim during his life time of a displaced person before June 30, 1955. The successor-in-interest is also required to file claim before the date fixed by Section 4 of the Act33. The argument that the appellant is entitled to equivalent land as is the verified claim is untenable. The verified claim is verification of the claim of the displaced person in respect of his property in West Pakistan. The entitlement of allotment out of compensation pool is contained in Rule 51 of the Rules. Rule 51 of the Rules provides for the land which is to be allotted in lieu of area abandoned. In respect of 83 acres of area abandoned, the entitlement is 45.8¾ acres as per the Appendix XIV. Therefore, the father of the appellant could at best claim the remaining 4 acres but had to raise a claim by seeking his remedy against the order passed by the Regional Settlement Commissioner on April 29, 1954 or March 24, 1956. Rule 51 of the Rules will be applicable if the land is not available and the competent authority decides to allot land in bits and parts. The order of allotment does not show that the allotting authority reserved any right for allotment of the remaining land, therefore, the claim of the appellant stood satisfied in its entirety when the allotment was made under the Act in the year 195435. Another argument was raised that the expression package deal is not the expression used in the communication dated May 24, 1980 though such expression was used in the communication dated March 5, 1962 by the Central Government and/or in the communication dated March 23, 1963 when communicating with Punjab Government. We find that the lack of use of expression package deal will not change the nature of transfer which is in terms of Section 16 of the Act with the date of transfer specified as June 1, 1980 in terms of Rule 34 of the Rules. The transfer of land forming part of compensation pool is contemplated by Section 16 of the Act, when it provides that for the custody, management and disposal of the compensation pool, the Central Government constitute such authority or corporation. Thus, if the Central Government could transfer land forming part of the compensation pool to a corporation, then it could very well transfer land to a State Government40. Mr. Sibal has strongly relied upon the order passed by this Court in International Sindhi Panchayats. The said order is that the cases and proceedings pending on the date of repeal shall be decided under the provisions of the Act. The said order is not helpful to the issue raised in respect of the right of the Central Government for allotment of land after the same was transferred to State of Andhra Pradesh on May 24, 1980 w.e.f. June 1, 1980.