BASANT RAM versus UNION OF INDIA

Taylor's Medical Jurisprudence (1956 Edn.) Voi. 1, at page 122, some cases ar~ given showing that hairs were identified as belonging to particular persons.

Thus, we have besi<les the evidence of the approver three important facts which connect the appellant with the commission of the offence. His pointing out the dead body, his pointing out the silver buttons of the deceased which were stained with huma.n blood and the presence of his hairs on pania (scarf) on whicli there were the hairs of the deceased .also. In our opinion this would be sufficient evidence in thA circumstances of the present case to connect· the avpellant with the commission of the offence.

We, therefore, dismiss the appeal.

Appeal disn. iss(d.

BASANTRAM .,,

UNION OF INDIA

(P. B. GAJENDRAGADKAR andK. N. WANC1HOO, JJ.)

Evacuee Property--Inclu<ion in compensation. poolr-Effect -Power of Central Government-AdminiBtration of Evac"ee Property (Central) R"lea, r. 14 (6)-AdminiBtration of li'vacue< Property .1ct, 1950-Tlte displ~ced persons (Comp,nBation and Rekahilitation) ·4.ct, (XUV qf 1954), ss. 12, 14, 16 and 19.

The appellants migrated to India in 1947 from West Pakistan. To begin with, they were given temporary allot-ment of land in two villages. In 1949, land was allotted to them on qua~i-pern1anent basis, and they have remained in possession of the same eversince. Originally, land was classi .. fied into two kinds : urban and agricultural land. Later on; third classification was introduced, known as sub-urban land. fhe two villages in which land was allotted to the appellants were not included in. the notification with respect to sub-urban land. In February, 1952, the Director of Rehabilitation passed an order declaring those villages as

L9af --

K11nb; liarsan Jadav v. State ofGujaud -Kapur J.

1"62 January21.

Ba.rant R.o.m ' v. Union of India

IV rmchGO .T •

'.734 SUPREME COURT REPORTS .[1962] SUPP.

sub-urban. The result of the order was that the allotment made to the appellants was to be reduced. The appellants went'in revision to the Custodian General, and their revision peti1ions were di!lmissed on the ground that in view of Rule 14(6)(iii)(d) of the Rules it was open to the Central Govern-Il]ent by special order to direct cancellation or variation of the. aJ.lotmeht made in favo_ur of the appellants, and the Central Government had On the rrpresen'tation of the Punjab Governm("n t agreed to declare the two villages in question as sub'urban by its or_der. dated October 11, 1955. The appe!lapts filed writ petition in the High Court but that W?.~ di~missed summarily. They have come in appeal to this ~ourt by special 'eave.

Held, that when the notification of March 24, 1955, was rr ade under s. 12 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehbi!itation) Act, 1954, the evacuee property in those villagf's Ceasrd to be evacuee property and became part of the compensation pool. That property could only be dealt with under the Act flf 1954. Tf any variation or cancella_tion of ::iliotment Vias to he madr. 'that C<1uld be dbne only under the, provi•i.ons of s. 19 ·of Act of 1954. There was no power left in the Central Government to act under Rule 14(6)(iii)(d) of the R11Jes framed under the Administration of Evacuee Property Ar.t, 1950 with respect to that land after the noti-ficaTion of March 24, 1955.

Ba./mukand v. Th• "State of Pun,iali, I.L.R. 1957 Punjab

712 and Ma_i<lr Gnpal s;nflh v. Custodian of Eracuee Property, A.I.R. 1961 S.C. 1320, foJlowed.

Crvrr, APPELLATE JuRISDTC'TION : Civil Appeal

· No.'76G of 1957.

AppMI by special leave from the judgm~nt

11nd o'rdcr dR.ted Jarynary 31, 1956, of the Pun1ab Hi<>b ,.. 'Court in Civil . Writ Petition No. 30 of 1956.

R. 8. Nnru.la, for tho appellants.

B. J(. Khanna and I'. D. 11! enon, for the res· pondents .

.'::. 1,. Prmdhi, for the intcrvenNs.

l962. .J 11nuarv 24.

Tho .Tudgrnf\nt of the

Conrt was dn\jvC'rod hy

\VAis<'·HOO, J.-This is !tn app<'al by special

knve against fhe nrdnr <'f .1]1P P11nj11h High Conrt

summarily rejecting petition filed by the appel-lants under Art. 226 of the Constitution. The bfr:f facts neceEsary for present purposes are these, The appellants migrated in 1947 from what is now West Pakistan and settled in two villages, viz., Sheikhapintl anr'I Kot.la. They were given temporary allotment of agricultural land in the two villages under the East Punjab Evacuees' (Administration of Property) Act, (No.XIV of 1947) then in force. Thereafter scheme was formu-lated in 1948 for q11asi-perm&nent allotment of agricultural land to ownerR of land in West Pakistan after the East Punjab Refugees (Registra-tion of Claims) Act, (No. VIII of 1948) was enacted. In July 1949, notification was issued stating the condition under which allotment of awicultural land would be made to displaced persons from West Pakistan. This allotment was quasi permanent in the smse that it was to remain in force so long as the land was t.o remain vested in the Custodian of Evacuee Property. In pursuance of this notification, land was allotted in the two villages to the appellants on quasi-permanent basis in I \.149 and the appellants have remained in posseRsion thereof eversince. Originally Jann was classified into two kindR, namely, (i) urban m;d (ii) agricultural land. Later in 1949, how<"ver, third classification, namely sub-urhan was also introd11ceCl in practice with respPC't tv agricultural land in the neighbourhood of Cl3rtain towns and notification seems to have been issued with reRpect to that specifying the villages land in which was considered to be sub-urban (vide Chap. V of Land Settlement Manual by Tarlok Singh). But the two village~ in which land was allotted to the appellants were not included in the notification with respect to sub-urban land.

In August 1950 after tho quasi-permanent

allotmPnt in favour of the appellants had hnen

1962 Basont ll<lln v. Union of India Wanehoo J.

Illtl B111W Rortt v. U11ion of lltdia Wor1clioo J.

736 Sl"'PREME OO"CJRT REPORTS [1962) SUPP.

made, the Revenue Assistant (Rehabilitation) Jullundur proposed that t.hese two villages should also be ela.ssified as sub-urban, tho consequence of which would have been to reduce the area of land givi>n to the allottl'.es therein. The . appellants objected before the Director General of Rehabili-tation to the villages being graded ns sub·urb&n. The Director General called for report from the Revenue Assistant (Rehabilitation) and eventually passed an order on January 12, 1951 that it was not desirable at that stage to cause any disturbance to the allotments made in theae two villages by declaring them .sub.urban and that the atatm quo should continue. This however did not end the matter and in February, 1952 the Director of Rehabilitation passed en order in effect declaring these vilhges 11.8 sub-urr·an with the result that the allotment ma.do to the appe1Iants would havo to be reduced. It also appears thi.t some order was p&11scd in April, 1952 on paper alloting the extra land which would be rele&llt'd from the allotment of the appellants to other persons who have a11pearl'd as intervcners in this appeals. But thi~ ordi>r rPmained merely on pa.per and has not been carried mlt so far. When the appellants came to know of the order of February ~!). 11152, they filed revision before the Custodian Guneral for setting aside that order. The revision ,rame up before the Dl'put y Custodian General for hearing in January l 9fi6. By then however certain changes in the law and the Rules had been made. Firstly, there was an amendment in r. 14 (6) of die Ari ministration of Evarm·e prope1 ty (Central)Ruks fr'lmed under the Administration of Evacuue prop<'rty Act, (Centrn.l Act XXXI of 1950). Further, the Displacrd persons (Compensation and Rrhabilitation) Act, Centrnl Act XLIV of 1954, (hereinaftt'r n·ferr~d to as the Act) had b!'en pnssed. Undl'r tho amenrlmr·nt tn r. 14(n) power mt~ gil't'll for canc<'llatinn or variatio11 of any

allotment of rural eva~uee property on quasi-permanent basis, where the allotment was to be cancelled or varied in accordance with the general or special order of the Central Government. It appears that in the meantime correspondence pass-ed between the Punjab Government and the Central Government and an order under the amended r. 14 (6) (iii) (d) was obtained on October 11,1955. Therefore, when the revision came up before the Deput1 Custodian General he held that in view of r. 14 (6) (iii) (d) of the Rules it was open to the Central Government by special order to direct cancellation or variation of the allotment made in thjs case in favour of the appellants and that the Central Government had on the representation of the Punjab Government agreed to declare thes.e two villages as sub·urban by its order dated October ll, 1955; therefore he held that whatever was being done after October 11, 1955 was in pursuance of the order of the Central Government. He therefore held that the impugned order of Feb-ruary 29, 1952, even if it was revisable, no longer held the field and action was to be taken in future under the order of the Central Government passed on October 11, 1955. Therefore, the revisions had become infructuous and he dismissed them.

Then followed the writ petition by the appellants in the Punjab High Court, which was dismissed summarily. As leave was refused by the High Court, the appellants applied for special leave to this Court, which was granted; and that is how the matter has come up before us.

The main contention on behal£ of the appella-

nts before us is that after the coming into ·force of the Act and the notification made thereunder on March 24, 1955 under s. 12, the land allotted to the appellants in the two villages. ceased to be evacu'le property and became part of the compensation pool created thereunder a.nd therefore the Central

1962 Basani Rom y, Union •/Jr.di• WancMo J.

B.-&... v. u,.;.,, of btdi• WacAooJ.

Government had no. power left to act under the Central Act XXXI of 1950 and tho Rules framed thereunder. In consequence the order pa.sscd, by the Central Government on October II, 1955 on the basis of which the Deputy Custodian General rejected the revision petitions filed on behalf of the appellants was not within the compe-tence of the Central Government and no action could bo taken by virtue of that order declaring the two villages as sub-urban. Therefore it was not open to the authorities under the Central ActXXXI of 1950 to take any action under that order with the object of varying the allotment made in favour of the appellants by reducing the area allotted to thorn. It is further urged that whatever further action has to be taken after the notification dated March 24, 1955 can only be taken under the Act and that no such action has in fact boon taken.

We are of opinion that there is force in this contention of the appellants and it must prevail. Section 12( I) of the Act provides that "if the Central Government is of opinion that it is necessary to acquire any evacuoo property for pubJic pur· pose, being purpose oonneoted with the rei'ief and rehabilitation of displaced persons, including pay-ment of compensation to euch persons, the Central Government may at any time acquire such evacuee property by publishing in the Official Gazette notification to the effect that the Central Govern· ment bas decided to acquire such evacuee property in pursuance of this section". Sub-section (2) then provides that "'on the publication of notification under sub-section (l), the right, title and interest of any evacuee in the evacuee property specified in the notification shall ......... be extinguished and the evaonee property shall vest absolutely in the Central Government free from all encumbrances." Sub· section ( 4) provides that all evacuee property acquired under this section shall form part of the

2 S.C.R.

compensation pool. Section 14 provides for the constitution of compensation pool. Section 16 gives powers to the Central Govern-ment for the management of the com-pensation pool, including the appointment of such officers as it may deem fit (referred to as managing officers) or constitution of such authority or corporation, as it may deem fit (re,ferred to as managing corporations). Section 17 provides for functions of managing officers and managing cor-porations. Section 19, which is important, provides that "notwithstanding anything contained in any contract or any other law for the time being in force but subject to any rules that may be made under this Act, the managing offlcer or managing corpora-tion may cancel any allotment or termina1e any lease or amend the terms of any lease or allotment under which any evacuee property acquired under this Act is held of occupied by person, whether such allotment or lease was granted before or after the commencement of this Act." Rules have been framed under the Act specifying the circumstances under which managing officer or managing corporation may cancel an allotment or terminate lease or vary the terms of any such lease or allot-ment (see r. 102). It is not in dispute that the evacuee property in these two villages was notified under s.12(1) of the Act on March 24, 1955. The cone!lquence of that notification is that all rights, title and intE•rest of the evacuee in the property cease~ with the result that the property no longer remamed evacuee property. Once therefore the property ceased to be evacuee property it can not be dealt with under the Central Act No. XXXI of 1950 or the Rules frame<! thereunder. The property in these two villages became part of the compensation pool after the notification of March 24, 1955 and could be dealt with under the provisions of the Act and any variation or cancellation of any lease or allotment thereafter could only be made under s.19

B•sflnt Rm •• Uni,. of [,,,U, Wanchoo J.

19" .i-1a.. •• U"'-•flldia w--.J.

740 SUPREME OOURT REPORTS [1962] SOPP.

of the Act. This is the position which emerges on a. consideration of sections 12, 14, 16 a.nd 19 of the Act after the notification undPr s. 12( I) was made with rospect to the eva.ouee property in these two villages on March 24, 1955. This view has been taken by the Punjab High Court in Balmukand v. T7i£ Punjab St.ate ('). The same view has also been expressed by this Court in Major Gopal, Singh v. Custodian, EvaC!iR.e Property, (•), where it was held that from the date of the notifica.tion under s. 12, the Custodian by reason of the divesting of the pro-perty becomoafunctU1Jojficio with respect to it and oa.nnot rectify a.ny error ma.de by him in the past in the matter of cancellation of allotment. It follows therefore that when the notification of March 24, 1955 was ma.de a.nd the evacuee property in these two villages oeased to be evacuee property and became part of the compensation pool it could only be dealt with under the Act a.nd if any variation or oanoellation of allotment was to be made it could only be done under the provisions of s. 19 of the Act and thore was no power left in the Central Government to act under r. 14(6)(iii)(d) of the Rules framed under the Central Act XXXI of 1950 with respect to this land after the notifica.tion of March 24, 1955. The order of the Deputy Custodian General of January 1956 shows that further pro-ceedings with reepect to this land are contemplated under the order of October 11, 1950 pa8ll6d by the Central Government under.r. 14(6)(iii)(d). As how-ever that order was pa.ssed after Ma.rob 24, 1955, when the power of the Central Government to a.ot under the Central Act XXXI of 1950 had OO&led on the evacuee property in these two villages be-ooming part of the compensation pool, that order must be set aside and no further proceedings can be taken under that order. We order accordingly. The appellant.II will get their coetll.(I) I. L. ll. 1957 Punj. 712. (2) (1962] l S. C. R, 328.

2 S.C.R. SUPREME OOURT REPORTS

We should however like to make it clear that we express no opinion on the controversy bet;ween the appellants and the interveners who are left to such remedies as may be avriilable to them under the law.

A.B. ABDULKADIR AND OTHERS

THE STATE OF KERALA AND ANOTHER (AND CONNECTED APPEALS)

(B. P; SINHA, c. J., P. B. GAJENDRAGADKAR, K. N. WANOHoo, M. HU>AYATULLAH ·and J.C. SHAH, JJ.)

Central Exci.e-Control oj tobacco-System of auction8-Licence for storage-Repeal qf state law-Cochin and Travancore enactments, if lau• c.orrespond1"ng to Central E.xcises Act-'' Excise duty", meaning of-Cochin Tobacco Act, 1084 (Cochin 7 of 1084 M. E.)-1'ravancore Tobacco Regulation, 1087 (Travancore 1of1087 M.E.) -Finance Act, 1950 (25 of 1950), 88. 11(1), 13 (2).

In 1909 the Ruler of the erstwhile State of Cochin enacted the Cochin Tobacco Act of 1084 (M.E.) with the object of controHing the cultivation, production, manufacture, storage and sale of tobacco. Rules were framed under the Act for regulating the cultivation, possession, transportation and sale of tobacco and system of licensing was introduced for that purpose. Licences for storage \Vere to be annual and to be issued on payment of licence fee. The authorities administering the provisions of the Act and the Rules framed thereunder were the Commissioner of Excise and his subordi" natcs, The system in force for the collection of tobacco revenue was to auction what were called class and class shops.

law similar to that prevailing in Cochin was promul-gated in 1911 by the Ruler ofTravancore as the Travancore Tobacco Regulation of 1087 (M.E.). The two States merged themselves in 1919 as the State ofTravancore Co<"Mn but the two Acts continued to remain in force in the respective territories. On April I, 1950, after the Constitution of India pad come into force and Travancore Cochin had become

19111 .. antB.,. •• U•U..of l•'i• --