HOSHNAK SINGH versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

HOSHNAK SINGH

UNION OF INDIA & ORS. February 27, 1979

[P. N. SHINGHAL AND D. A. DESAI, JJ.]

Displaced Persons (Compensation & Rehabilitation) Act, 1954-Ss. 10' &

12-Scope of.

Res judicata-Principles analogous to res judicata when could be invoked.

part of the land allotted to the appellant on quasi-permanent basis as displaced person from West Pakistan was acquired by the Government. Wben the question of payment of compensation in respect of the land acquired w:.1s pending, the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954 was passed which enabled holders of quasi-pe.rmanency rights to obtain pernta-nent settlement pursuant to which permanent settlement in respect of acquired land was made in favour of the appellant.

AJJeging that the land allotted to the appellant was not allottable on pcrrna-nent basis, the Chief Settlement Commissioner, by his order dated 17th March, 1961, cance11ed the allotment. The appellant's petition questioning the correct-ness of this decision was dismissed by the High Court in limine.

Thereupon the appellant preferred petition under s. 33 of the Act to the Joint Secretary to the Government of India, Rehabilitation Department, challeng-ing the order of the Chief Settlement Commissioner. By his order dated 29th September, 1964 the Joint Secretary rejected the petition pointing out that the cancellation of the appellant's permanent settlement rights in the land was in accordance with law and that no interference was called for.

lbe appellant filed writ petition in the High Court. In rejecting the appellant's writ petition impugning the order dated 29th Septem-ber, 1964 the High Court was of the view that it was barred by princinfes analogous to res judicata because if that petition were aI1owed, it would in effect, amount to cancellation of the order dated the 17th March, 1961 which beclame final as against the appellant on dismissal of his first petition.

Allowing the appeal,

HEID : l(a) Where petition under Art. 226 is dismissed in limine with-out speaking order, such dismissal would not constitute bar of res judicata to subsequent petition on the same cause of action. When petition is dismissed on the ground that the petitioner has an alternative remedy by way of appeal or revision under statute and on failure to get relief after pursuing the remedy by way of appeal or revision, he moved the High Court, it would be incorrect to dismiss the petition on the ground that the order made by the re\'isional authority had the effect of merging the orieinal order with the order of the revisional authority, and that the challenge on the fresh cause of actifln to the order of the revisional authority would of neces~itv be cha11enge to the original order also and that therefore the petition would be barred bv nrinciples analogous to res judicata as the first order had become final. [407C-E] 6-253SCI/79

Daryao & Ors. v. State of U.P. & Ors. [1962] 1 SCR 574; Virudhunagar Steel Rolling Mills Ltd. v. The Govt. of Madras, [1968] 2 SCR 740; Tilokchand Motichand & Ors. v. H. B. Munshi & Anr., [1969] 2 SCR 824; referred to.

In the instant case in the first wTit petition the appellant questioned the cor· rcctness of the order of the Chief Settlement Commissioner dated 17th March, 1961 without claiming therein any compensation for the land a1:quired. That having been dismissed in linline he invoked the revisional jurisdiction under s. 33 of the Act. When that petition was dismissed by the revisional authority he preferred the second writ petition. What he prayed in the second petition was direction quashing the order dated 29th September, 1964 of the Joint Secretary to the Government of India. The High Court was, therefore, in error in reject-ing the second petition on the sole ground that the order of 17th March, 1961 merged into the order of 29th September, 1964 and in substance: the challenge was to the order dated 17th March, 1961 which had become final. [40d A-Bl

(b) Secondly, if the claim for compensation was not raised in the first petition but was specifically raised in the second, it would not be dismissed on the ground that it \Vas barred by principles analogous to res judicata. f408 D] 2 (a) It has been well established by long line of decisions of this Court that after July 22, 1952 the Custodian had no authority to cancel or modify quasi-permanent allotment, that the allottees of these rights could not "be dis-possessed at the whim or caprice of the Custodian, that the quasi-permanent rights were heritable and that the holders were entitled to permanent settlement by issuance of sanad. Added to this was the fact that r. 14(6) of the Adminii;;-tration of Evacuee Property (Central) Rules, 1950 as amended 1Ero1n July 22, 1952 restricted the power of the Custodian to resume or cancel quasi-perma-E nent rights of the allottees except in the circumstances 'mentiont:d in the sub-rule and no material is placed on record to show that the Custodian had exer-cised hi• power under r. 14(6) of the Rules. [41! D-E]

P. D. Sharma v. State Bank of India, [1968] 3 SCR 91; Amar Singh v. Custodian, Evacuee Property, Punjab, [1957] SCR 801; State of Punjab v. Suraj Prakash Kapur, etc., [1962] 2 SCR 711; Joginder Singh & Ors. v. Deputy Custodian General of Evacuee Property, [1962] 2 SCR 738 at 740; referred to.

(b) Nor again is there any material to show that the Custodian had the power to cancel the allotment under the State Rules. It was not shown that the State Government had framed any re-settlement scheme and that the allot· ment was cancelled for that purpose. [412 HJ

'3(a) Under the Evacuee Property Act, 1950 property which was declared ns evacuee property vested in the Custodian and was aliotted to displaced persons on quasi-permanent basis. To obviate difficulties caused by continu-ed unextinguislied title of the evacuee, the 1954 Act was passed, under s. 12(2) of which the right, title and interest of any evacuee in the evacuee property specified in the notification issued under the section stood extinguished and the evncuee property would vest absolutely in the Central Government. Evacuee property acquired in this manner. formed part of the compensation pool. Therefore, the appellant's property which was acquired in 1953, much before the coming into force of th,e 1954 Act, could not have become part of the compensation pool. [413 G-H]

~ " l' _.__

(b) Even assuming that though the property was taken over by the Central Government in 1953 evacuee interest in it bad not been extinguished till notification under s. 12 of the 1954 Act had been issued and that on the issue of the notification it became part of the compensation pool, the consequence envisaged by s. 10 of the 1954 Act must ensue. It is that so long as the property remained vested in the Central Government it shall continue in possession of the person to whom it was allotted on the same conditions on v.'hich he held th'e property immediately before the date of acquisition. [914 C-Dl

In the present case if the property had been taken over by the Central Government much before the 1954 Act came into force neither s. 12 of tht: 1954 Act nor r. 49 would be attracted. If on the other hand the evacuee interest in the property came to be extinguished on the issue of notification under s. 12, s. 10 would be attracted and the appellant would be entitled to hold the property till it continued to vest in the Central Government under s. 12. In other \vords in either event he would be entitled to +c:ompensation. [415 C-D]

(c) Nor again is it correct to say that it was fresh n.Uotment under s. 10 of the 1954 Act. The land was allotted in 1949 and s_ 10 does not purport to make fresh a!lotment. [415 Al

4(a) The whole of chapter VIII of the 1955 Rul'es (which indudes rr. 49 to 69) Would not apply because the land allotted was agricultural land and the allotment was made under the notification of the Goven1ment of Punjab dated 8th July, 1949_ [416 CJ

(b) Once chapter VIII of the 1955 Rules and especially r. 49 v:·hich pro-vides for payment of compensation in the form of land is out of the way, there is nothing in the Act which would debar quasi-permanent allottee asking for compensation in cash and the Government paying it. Moreover on the former occasion the appellant was paid compensation in cash for part of the land acquired from him_ [417 D-E]

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 2082 of 1969.

Appeal by Special Leave from the Judgment and Order dated 14-2-1969 of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in L.P.A. No_ 103/68.

R. S. Narula, S. K. Mehta, T. S. Doabia, P. N. Puri and K. R_ Nagaraja, for the Appellant.

Girish Chandra for Respondent No. 1.

Hardev Singh and R. S. Sodhi for Respondents 2-5.

The Judgment of lhe Court was delivered by

DESAI, J.-This appeal by special leave arises from the dismissal of the Civil Writ Petition filed by the present appellant by learned single Judge of the Punjab & Haryana High Court as also dismissal in fimine of the Letters Patent appeal preferred by him.

Appellant is displaced person from West Pakistan. Ou his migrntion to India he was allotted on quasi-permanent basis land admeasuring 32t standard acres in village Daulatpur, Tehsil Pathankot,

District Gurdaspur. First respondent Union of India acquired land admeasuring 1243 canals, 5 marlas which included 15 acres of !and allotted to the appellant, for constructing railway line. According to the appellant he was paid cash compensation for the same. First res-pondent further acquired in 1950 some land for construction National Highway from Jammu to Jullundur and the acquis;tion included por-B tion of the land allotted to the appellant and along with other allottees he was paid cash compensation for the same. First respondent wanted an open plot of land for setting up housing colony for rehabilitating some refugees from Mirpur (Kashmir) and in all it took possession of land comprising 7.88 acres of non-evacuee land and 6.64 acres ot evacuee land. This acquisition included land admeasuring 1 standard acre and 15! uuits of land allotted to the appellant. Possession of the land including the land of the appellant was admittedly taken over in July 1953. Since then the appellant has been requesting the first res-pondent and other competent authorities for payment of compensation for the same. In the mean time after the introduction of the Dispfaced Persons ·(Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954, ('1954 Act' for short), allotment of land to appellant which was till then on quasi permanent basis was converted into permanent basis. As the appellant was clamouring for compensation for the land taken from him, the Chief Settlement Commissioner, Punjab, made an order on 17th March 1961, Annexure 'C', whereby reference made from the Evacuee Property Department was accepted and the permanent settle-ment rights conferred on the appellant in respect of 1 standard acre and 15:!- units of land were cancelled on the ground that there already existed houses over that portion of the land and the land was described as ghair mumkin abadi and was not allottable on permanent settlement, as agricultural land against the verified claim of the appellant. The appellant questioned the correctness of this order in Writ Petition No. 559/61 in the High Court which was dismissed in limine on 22nd March 1961 and which has led to contention on behalf of the respon-dents that the subsequent writ petition from which the present appeal arises is barred by the principles analogous to res judicata. After the dismissal of the aforementioned writ petition the appellant approached the Financial Commissioner (Rehabilitation Department), Chandigarh, as per his representation Annexure 'D' dated 15th March 1963 request-ing him to pay cash compensation for the land taken over by the first respondent which till such taking over was held by the appellant on quasi permanent allotment. On receipt of this representation the appellant was directed as per Annexure 'E' dated 25th April 1963 to appear before the Financial Commissioner (Taxation) on 16th March 1963 at Chandigarh. The appellant accordingly appeared before the

Financial Commissioner (Taxation) and represented his case lo1 cash compensation. Subsequent thereto, Secretary to the Government of Punjab, Rehabilitation Department, wrote to his counterpart in the Central Government requesting the first respondent to concur with the decision of the Punjab Government for payment of cash compensation to the appellant adding that the land held by the appellant on quasi permanent basis was taken over for the purpose of the first respondent um! that as the area involved was less than 2 acres, the decisioa to pay cash compensation in respect of such area, arrived at in the meeting held between the officers of the Punjab Government and the Ministry of Rehabilitation on 27th August, 1957 would govern the case. Presum-ably in response to this communication from the Punjab Government the then Horne Minister wrote demi official letter to the then Chief Minister of Punjab in which it was admitted that the land allotted to the appellant was in rural areas and part of it was required later on for public purpose and that in view df the decision arrived at the meeting on 27'h August. 1957 the appellant would be entitled to cash compensation and requested the Chief Minister to process the case accordingly. Thus, even though both the Govcrmnents agreed in their inter-departmental communications that the appel-lant would be entitled to cash compensation, nothing tcngihle came out with tl1e result that the appellant preferred petition under s. 33 of the 1954 Act challenging the order datcu 17th March 1961 of the then Settlement Commissioner cancelling the per-manent settlement rights conferred upon the appellant. This appli-~ation was rejected by the Joint Secretary to the Government of India observing that the cancellation of the permanent settlement right, was in accordance with law and no interference was called for. Thereafter the appellant filed the writ petition from which the present appeal arises.

After the writ petition was filed and rule nisi was issued, return was filed as per the affidavit of one R. C. Aggarwal, Under Secretary to Goverrnnent of Punjab, Rehabilitation Department, presumably on behalf of all the respondents which undoubtedly amongst others, include the Union of India, the first respondent, and the State of Punj~b. the second respondent. It must be specifically mentioned that tl;e Union of India did not file any separate return and accepted the return filed by and on behalf of the State of Punjab and other officers of the Punjab Government. There are certain averments in this return which must be noticed. Appellant is displaced person and he was allotted 32t standard acres of land on quasi permanent basis is in fact admitkd. It is equally admitted that the land which was taken over for setting up colony for rehabilitation o[ some families from Kashmir included one

'SUPREME COURT REPORTS

standard acre and 15! units of land which was till then held by the appellant and that the land was taken over in July 1953. It was con-tended that when land is allotted on quasi permanent basis, the allot-ment can be cancelled and the land can be resumed and that when such resumption takes place the allottee is only entitled to compensation in the form of land and not in cash. It was also contended that the cancellation of the permanent settlement rights was just and legal because the conferment was the result of fraud between the appellant and some officers of the Punjab Government and proceeded on the erroneous assumption that the land was used as agricultural land though in fact it can be appropriately described as ghair mumkin abadi. The manner in which the preliminary objection was raised at the hearing of the writ petition that in view of the dismissal of the earlier petition bearing on the same subject the present petition is barred by the princi-ples of res judicata was not in terms taken up in the return filed on behalf of the respondents. The High Court, however, appears to have permitted the respondents to raise that contention.

The learned single Judge held that the effect of dismissal of the earlier petition filed by the present appellant was that the order dated 17th March, 1961 by which permanent settlement rights conferred or the appellant were cancelled became final and if the present petition is allowed the only thing the court would have to do would be to cancel the order dated 17th March, 1961 which has become final against the appellant and, therefore, the petition is barred by the principles a'nalo-gous to res judicata.

Mr. Girish Chandra for the first respondent and Mr. Hardev Singh for the remaining respondents urged that the appeal must fail for the same reason for which the earlier petition of the appellant was dis-missed inasmuch as the cause of action for both the petitions being the same, the subsequent petition would be barred by the principles analogous to res judicata.

In the earlier petition the appellant questioned the correctness of the decision dared 17th March 1961 by which permanent settlement rights conferred on the appellant for the land held by him on quasi permanent basis, including the land admeasnring 1 standard acre and !St units taken over by the first respondent in July 1953, and the appellant in the earlier petition did not claim any cash compensation for the land taken over by the first respondent. In the present p~tition the appellant seeks direction for quashing the order of the Joint Secretary, Rehabilitation Department, Government of India dated 29th September, 1964 rejecting the representation made to the Central Government presumably nuder s. 33 of the 1954 Act question-

ing the correctness of the order dated 17th March 1961. Under s. 33 the Central Government has power to call for the rocord of any pro-ceeding under the Act and to pass such order in relation thereto as in its opinion the circumstances of the case require and as is not incon-sistent with any of the provisio'm; contained in the Act or the rules made thereunder. Broadly stated the powe.r of revision is conferred on the Central Go\'ornment under s. 33. Appellant invoked this revi-sional jurisdiction under s. 33 against the order dated 17th March 1961 which he challenged in the first petitio'n. After the dismissal of the first petition he preferred revision application under s. 33 and when this revision petition was dismissed he preferred the second petition. 'The High Court was of the view that the ord·~r dated 17th___March 1961 merged into the order dated 29th September 1964 passed by the Central Government while dismissing the revision applicatio'n of the appellant and, therefore, if now the petition is allowed it would have the effect of setting aside the order dated 17th March 1961 which in view of the dismissal of th~ earlier petition of the appellant had become final. The High Court is clearly in error in reaching this conclusion.

The earlier petition was dismissed by 'non-speaking, one word, order 'dismissed'. The High Court may as well dismiss the petition in limine on the ground of delay or !aches or on the ground of alter-native remedy. The second petition after pursuing the alternative remedy would not be barred by the principles analogous to res judicata. More often petition under Article 226 is dismissed on the ground that b~fore invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of the High Court, if the potitioner has an alternative remedy under statute under which the right is claimed by the petitioner, the Court expects the pditioner to exhaust the remedy and in such situation the petition is dismissed in limine.

If after preforring an appeal or revision under the statute under which the right is claimed by the petitioner petition under Article 226 is filed irrespoctive of the fact that the revision· or appeal was dismissed and th~ original order which was challenged in the first peti-tion had merged into the appellate or revisional order, no·netheless th·o second petition in the circumstances would not be barred by the princi-ples analogous to res judicata b<canse the cause of action is entirely different and the merger of the order cannot stand i·n the way of the petitioner invoking the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226.

In the leading case of Daryao & Ors. v. State df U.P. & Ors.(') this Court in venns said that if the petition filed in the High Court under (!) [1962] I SCR 574.

Article 226 is dismissed not on the merits but because of the laches of the party applyihg for the writ or becaus•.; it is held that the party had an alternative remedy available to it th>"n the dismissal of the writ petition would not constitute bar to the subsequent. petition under Art. 32 exc·.opt in cases where the facts found by the High Court may th•.omselves be relevant even under Art. 32. If writ petition is dis-missed in limine and an order is pronounced in that behalf whether or not the dismissal would constitute bar would depend upon the nature of the order. If the order is on the merits it would ho bar; if the order says that the dismissal was for the reason that the petitioner was guil~y of !aches or that he had an alternativ•e remedy it would· not lx• bar except in cases indicated ii;i the judgment. Then comes an obserrn-tion which may better be quoted :"It the petition is dismissed in limine without passing speaking order then such dismissal cannot be treated as creat-ing bar of res judicata. It is true that, prima facie, dismis-sal in limine even without passing speaking order in that behalf may strongly suggest that the Court took the• view that there was no substance in the petition at all, but in the absence of speaking order it would not be easy to decide what fac-tors weighed in the mind of the Court and that makes it diffi-cult and uhsafe to hold that such summary dismissal is dismissal on merits and as such constitutes bar of res judi-cata against similar petition filed under Art. 32".

In Virudhunagar Steel Rolling Mills Ltd. v. The Government of Madras,([1]) rejecting the contention that if the petition under Art. 226 is dismissed without issuing notice to the other side though by speak-ing order such dismissal would not bar the subsequent petition for same cause of action or for the same relief, it was observed that this Court in Daryao's case(') did not mean to lay down that if the petition is dismis-sed in limine without notice to the opposite side it would not bar sub-sequent petition. This Court only ruled that if the petition is dismissed. in limine but with speaking order which order itself indicates that the petition was dismissed on merits, the absence of notice to other side by itself would not be sufficient to negative the plea of res judicata in 2 subsequent petition in respect of the same cause of action. However, while negativing the contention on the facts of the case this Court re-affirmed that if the petition is dismissed in limine without passing speaking order than such dismissal cannot be treated as creating bar of res judicata. Similarly in Tilokchand Motichand & Ors. v. H. B.

____ ,,,_

Munshi & Anr.,(') majority of the Judges affirmed the ratio in Daryao's case (supra) that if petition under Art. 226 is dismissed not on merits but because an alternative remedy was available to the peti-tioner or that the petition was dismissed in limine without speaking -0rder such dismissal is not bar to the subsequent petition under Art. 32. It must follow as necessary corollary that subsequent petition under Art. 226 would not be barred by the principles analogous to res judicata. Roraffirming the view taken on this point in Daryao'.1 oase, in P. D. Sharma v. State Bank of India(') the preliminary objection about bar of res judicata was negatived. lt is, therefore, incontrovertible tha\ whe.re 1 petition under Art .. 226 is dismissed "' limine without ;peaking order ;ach dismissal would not constitute _bar" of res judicata to subsequent petition on the same cause of action, more so, when on the facts in this case it appears that the petition was dismissed presumably because the petitioner had an alternative remedy by way of revision petition under s. 33 of the 1954 Act which remedy he availed of and after failure to get the relief he moved the High Court again for the relief. It would be incorrect in such situation to dismiss the petition on the ground that the order made by the revisional authority dismis-sing the revision petition had the effect of merging the original order against which the revision was preferred with the order made by the revisional authority and, therefore, the challenge on the first cause e>[ action to the order made by the revisional authority would of necessity _be challenge to the original ci~der also and the petition would be bar-red by the principles analogous to res judicata as the rest order had become final. The High Court was clearly in error in dismissing the petition on this short ground.There is yet another fallacy in the approach of the High Court while dismissing the petition as being barred by the principles ana-logous to res judicata because the second relief claimed by the appellant in the second petition was never claimed in the first petition and is an independent '\nd separate relief which the High Court was invited to grant if the appellant was otherwise entitled to it. The appellant, by prayer (b) of the petition, sought direction that the respondents be ordered to pay cash compensation to the appellant for the area of land which had been takeu over by the respondents. It is nobody's case that such prayer was ever made in the first petition. In the first petition the grievance of the appellant was that the order dated 17th March, 1961 made by the Chief Settlement Commissioner cancel-ling the permanent settlement rights conferred on the appellant in res-pect of his land was illegal and invalid. There was no claim for (I) [1969] 2 SCR 824. (2) (1%8] 3 SCR 91.

compensation. claim for compensation was being separately pursued by the apellant and he did not invoke the jurisdiction of the High Court praying for direction to pay him compensation. In. the second petition from which this appeal arises there is specific prayer for compen.i;ation and Mr. Narula, learned counsel for the appellant, stated that the appellant is not interested in the first prayer questioning the validity of the order made by the Joint Secretary to Government of India dated 29th September 1964 affirming the order dated 17th March, 1961 which was the subject-matter of the first petition. Now, if claim for compensation was not raised in the first petition and if it is specifically raised in the second petition on the allegation that as the land of the appellant has been taken over by the Government for its own use, if compensation is not paid it would be deprivation of property without compensation and would be denial of fundamenta I right to hold property, it is unthinkable that the present petition for this particular relief can ever be dismissed in the facts of this case on the ground that it is barred by the principles analogous to res judicata. For this additional reason the order of the High Court is unsustain·· able.

And now to the facts of the case. The appellant is admittedly displaced person to whom 32t standard acres of land was allotted and the allotment admittedly was on quasi permanent basis. It is again an admitted position that in July 1953 the first respondent, Union of India, took possession of 1 standard acre and 15t units of land from the land allotted to the appellant on quasi permanent basis for its use,. viz., for setting up colony. Appellant contends that he must be paid compensation in cash for the land taken over from him. Respondents en the other hand contend that an allotment of land on quasi perma-nent basis could be resumed by the first respondent when the land was. required for its own use and on such resumption the appellant would only be entitled to allotment of an equivalent area of land but in no case the appellant would be entitled to compensation in cash.

This necessitates examination as to what is the interest of the appellant in the land allotted to him on quasi permanent basis and when and in what circumstances and for what purpose .it can be resumed or allotment cancelled and if so resumed, to what relief the appellant is entitled to.

There has been flood of enactments on the taking over and administration of evacuee property as also compensation payable to displaced persons. This Court in Amar Singh v. Custodian, Evacuee

~~ I ..

Property, Punjab,(') exhaustively and stage by stage examined the measures taken by the Central and State Governments first for rehabili-tating displaced persons, taking over of properties left by those who migrated to Pakistan, its distribution and allotment to displaced persons who came over to India on partition, and ultimately extinguisbment of the evacuee interest in such properties. To recapitulate them here would be merely adding to the length of this judgment. We would, therefore, only take note of the conclusion reached in Amar Singh's case (supra) with regard to the interest of the displaced persons to whom agricultural land was allotted on quasi permanent basis up to July 22, 1952. Says the Court at page 823 :

" ( 1) The allottee is entitled to right of use and occupa-tion of property until such time as the property remains vested in the Custodian;

( 2) The benefit of s.uch right will enurc to bis heirs and successors;

( 3) His enjoyment of the property is on the basis of pay-ing land revenue thereupon and cesses for the time being. Additional rent may be fixed thereupon by the Custodian. If and when he does so, the allottee is bound to pay the same;

( 4) He is entitled to quiet and undisturbed enjoyment of the property during that period;

(5) He is entitled to make improvements on the land with the assent of the Custodian and is entitled to com-pensation in the manner provided m the Punjab Tenancy Act;

( 6) He is entitled to exchange the whole or any part of the land for other evacuee land with the consent of the Custodian;

(7) He is e.ntitled to lease the land for period not exceeding three years without the permission of the Custodian and for longer period with bis consent. But he is not entitled to transfer his rights by way of sale, gift, will, mortgage or other private contract;

(8) His rights in the allotment are subject to the fairly extensive powers of cancellation under the Act and rules as then in force prior to July 22, 1952. on

varied ad1ninistrative considerations and actions such as the following : .................. "

Undoubtedly this Court held that these quasi permanent rights in land would not be property within the meaning of Article 31 of the Constitution and, therefore, if deprivation of property is complained of petition under Art. 32 would not lie. However, after conclud-ing in this manner this Court summed up the position with regard to the interest of quasi permanent holder in his holding as under :

"In holding that quasi-permanent allotment does not carry with it fundamental right to property under the Constitution we are not to be supposed as denying or weakening the scope of the rights of the allottee. Tliese rights as recognised in the statutory rules arc important and constitute the essential basis of sat ;sfactory rehabilitation and settlement of displaced land-holders. Until such time as these land-holders obtain sanads to the lands, these rights are entitled to the zealous protection of the constituted authorities according to administrative rules and instructions binding on them, and of the courts by appropriate proceed-ings where there is usurpation of jurisdiction or abuse of exercise of statutory powers".After re-affirming the position of the quasi permanent allottees as herein quoted, this Court in State of Punjab v. Suraj Prakash Kapur, etc., ([1]) held that after July 22, 1952, the Custodian ceases to have any authority to cancel or modify quasi permanent allotment. This en-unciation of the interest of the quasi permanent allottees in the land allotted to them should dispel any doubt about their entrenched interest in the land. Nor could it be said that those allottees were at ':lie mercy of the Custodian and can be dispossessed at his whim or caprice. These were heritable rights and the holders were entitled in due course. to permanent settlement by issuance of sanads. But even before this situation was reached fundamental change occurred in the posit ion of the Custodian vis-a-vis the quasi permanent :)llottces about 'he right of the former to cancel allotment and resume land. In exercise of the_ powers conferred by s. 56 of the Administration o[ Evacuee Property Act, 1950, the Central Government enacted what aro styled as Administration of Evacuee Property (Central) Rules, 1950. Rule 14 recites the power of the Custodian to vary or cancel the lease or allotment under certain circumstances mentioned therein. Initially sub-rule ,(6) was added to this rule and later on it was modified where-

(!} [1962] 2 SCR 7tl.

by the power to cancel any allotment or resume evacuee property allot-ted on quasi permanent basis was circumscribed and was available in the circumstances mentioned in amended sub-rule (6). The amend-ment effective from 22nd July 1952 had undoubtedly the effect of modifying and thereby restricting the power of resumption or cancella-tion vested in the Custodian in respect of quasi permanent allottees and the power was confined within very narrow limits. Therefore, subsequent to July 22, 1952, the Custodian of Evacuee Property would have the power to cancel an allotment only upon ground which falls within the exceptions enumerated in sub-rule (6) (vide Joginder Sillgh & Ors. v. Deputy Custodian General of Evacuee Property).(') We need not examine the circumstances in which resumption or cancellation can be ordered under the amended sub-rule (6) of rule 14 because it is not the case of the respondents that the land was resumed in exercise of the power conferred by rule 14 and in one or other of the circums-tances mentioned in sub-rule (6) thereof. Suffice it to say that after July 22, 1952, the Custodian had no authority to cancel quasi perma-nent allotment and resume land except in the circumstances and contingencies mentioned in sub-rule (6) of rule 14 and that having not been done, it cannot be contended on behalf of the respondents that the land in this case allotted on quasi permanent basis to appellant was resumed by the Custodian. Two fact situations material and necessary for raising this contention are absent in this case. There is no material placed on record, including the counter-affidavit, which would show that the Custodian resumed the land of the appellant in exercise of the power conferred by rule 14 and in one of the circums-tances mentioned in rnb-rule ( 6). And secondly, no such order of Custodian 1s forth-coming even after time was given to produce the file.

Mr. Hardev Singh, however, contended that even though sub-rule • (") of rule 14 as amended up to July 22, 1952 would not "enable the Custodian to resume land or cancel allotment granted on quasi penna-nent basis except in the circumstances mentioned in sub-rule ( 6), yet the State Government had the requisite power under rule made by the Punjab State Government on 29th August, 1951. It was contended that in exercise of the powers delegated by the Central Government under sub-s. (1) of s. 55 of the Administration of Evacuee Property Act, 1950, to make rules under clause (i) of sub-section (2) of s. 56, the Punjab Government made the rule, the relevant portion of which reads as under :

(l) (1962] 2 SCR 738 at 740.

"The Custodian shall be competent to cancel or termi-nate any lease or allotment or vary the terms of any lease, allotment or agreement and evict the lessee allottee in any one of the following circumstances;

(h) that it is necessary or expedient to cancel or vary the terms of lease/allotment for the implementation of resettlement schemes-and/or-rules framed by the State Government or for such distribution amongst displaced persons as appears to the Custodian to be equitable and pro-per". Mr. Hardev Singh contended that presumably the Custodian at the State level cancelled the allotment in respect of the land taken over for resettlement and rehabilitation of refugees from Kashmir and ci1at this cancellation and resumption must be for implementation of re-settlement scheme or under the rules framed for such resettlement schemes by the State Government and, therefore, the resumption was one under the Administration of Evacuee Property Act and it was not case of either acquisition or taking over of the land of the petitioner.

There is no material placed before us to support this submission. In the counter-affidavit on behalf of the respondents not one word has been stated that the Custodian at State level cancelled the allotment and resumed the land. The stand taken in the return filed m the High Court is that evacuee area measuring 7.88 acres was taker. over by the Government for construction and development of colony for rehabilitation of 300 Kashmiri displaced persons and that such land included an area of 1 standard acre and 15! units of the land allot:ed to the petitioner. It was further stated that this land of the appellant stood acquired under s. 12 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation & Rehabilitation) Act, 1954. There is not the slightest suggestion that the Custodian in exercise of the power under the aforementioned rule · cancelled the allotment in favour of the appellant and resumed the land. If snch is not the case, the power claimed under the rule can.not help the respondents. Assuming that there was power to cancel aJlot-ment and resume land under the State Rules, it must be shown that the State Government had framed resettlement scheme and for the pur-pose of the scheme the allotment was cancelled and land was resumed. The fact pleaded is to the contrary that the Union of India took posses-sion of the land for setting up colony. This also becomes clear fr~m the letter written by the Secretary to Government of Punjab, Rehabili-tation Department, Annexure 'F wherein it was in terms stated that

• >' -..,.- .. ;

the land in question was not acquired by the State Government but stood acquired by the Central Government in terms of the general noti-fication issued in 1955 and, therefore, the Government should concur in payment of compensation out of the funds allotted for setting up ol the colony. From the contents of the letter which have remained uncontroverted the situation that emerges is that the land was acquired by the Central Government for its own use. The Central Government could exercise powers under the Central Rules. It had not asked the State Government to acquire the land. Therefore, the power conferred c>n the State Custodian under the State Rules would not help the res-pondents as contended by Mr. Hardev Singh.

It was next contended that on the introduction of the 1954 Act and the issuance of Notification under s. 12, all evacuee property was acquired by th.e Central Government and under sub-s. ( 4) of s. 12 such aCCiJUired evacuee property formed part of the compensation pool. It was further said that if acquisition was under s. 12 of the 1954 Act, the allottee of land on quasi permanent basis would. be entitled to compensation as provided by rule 49 of Displaced Persons (Compen-sation & Rehabilitation) Rules, 1955, and in that event he would be entitled to compensation by allotment of agricultural land but not cash compensation. To understand the full import of the submission it is necessary to state that when there was migration of large number <if persons both the ways from India to Pakistan and vice versa, initially such property left by migrants from India to Pakistan was taken over for the purpose of administration under the1provisions of the Adminis-tration of Evacuee Property Act, 1950. This Act broadly provided for appointment of Custodian General of Evacuee Property and other authorities subordinate to him. The authorities set up under the Act were empowered to declare certain properties to be evacuee property and any property so declared as evacuee property would, under s. 8, vest in the Custodian for the State. The Custodian was empowered to administer the property and the powers and duties of the Custodian were enumerated in s. 10. In exercise of this power the Custodian allotted lands on quasi permanent basis to displaced persons. But this was an unsatisfactory situation because the interest of the evacuee in the evacuee property remained intact and till such· evacuee interest was extinguished, the evacuee property could not be settled on permanent basis. In order to obviate this difficulty the Displaced Persons (Com-pensation & Rehabilitation) Act, 1954, was enacted by Parliament. Section 12 provided for issuance of notification as hereinabove men-tioned and sub-s. (2) of s. 12 amongst others provided that the right, title and interest of any evacuee in the evacuee property specified in

the notification shall, on and from the beginning of the date on which the notification is so pnblished, be extinguished and the evacuee prc·-perty shall vest absolutely in the Central Government free from all encumbrances. Evacuee properties acquired in this manner would form part of the compensation pool.

If the scheme of the 1954 Act is as hereinbefore mentioned, we f;ril to see how the property which was admittedly allotted to the appellant on quasi permanent basis and which was taken over by the Central Government in July 1953, i.e. much before the introducticn of the 1954 Act, became property of the compensation pool. Assum-ing that even though it was taken over by the Central Government ~n July 1953, the evacuee interest therein having not been extinguished till the issue of notification under s. 12 of the 1954 Act and, ther~­fore, on the issue of notification the property became part of the compensation pool, the consequences provided in 1954 Act must ensue, viz., that so long as the property remained vested in the Central Government it shall continue in possession of the person to whom it was allotted on the same conditions on which he held the property immediately before the date of acquisition. In this connection refer-ence to s. 10 of the 1954 Act would be advantageous.. The relevant portion reads as under :

"10. Where any immovable property has been leased or allotted to displaced person by the Custodian under the conditions published :-

(a) by the notification of the Govermnent of Punjab in the Department of Rehabilitation No. 4891-S or 4892-S, dated the 8th July 1949; or

(b) by the notification of the Govermnent of Patiala and East Punjab States Union in the Department of Rehabilitation No. SR 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, cont;nue in possession of such property on the same conditions on which he held the property immediately before the date of the acquisi-tion, and the Central Government may, for tho purpose of payment of compensation to such dis-placed person, transfer to h;m mch property on such terms and conditions as may be prescribed."

-\ ".....

(• '~ 4 J/.. ?'

Iill

illlii-.\. ~""'.... '"' ..

.... r.

.... • •r.

r. ~~ ""

}-. "" I-

Now, indisputably the appellant was allotted the property on quasi permanent basis under the conditions published by the notification of the Government of Punjab in the Department of Rehabilitation, dated 8th July 1949. If he had continued to hold the property on the date on which the notification under s. 12 of the 1954 Act was issued, by the operation of s. 10 he would be entitled to hold the property till the property remained vested in the Central Government and v,ould be entitled to payment of compensation by transfer to him of sue~ property on terms and conditions that may be prescribed. Therefore,\'. if 1954 Act is not attracted because the property in questio!l was ·. already taken over by the Central Government in July 1953 much before the 1954 Act came into force neither s. 12 nor Rule 49 would be attracted. If on the other hand the evacuee interest in the property came to be extinguished on the issue of notification under s. 12 of the 1954 Act, its consequences would be as provided in s. 10 and the appelfant would be entitled to hold the property till it continues to vest in the Central Government under s. 12. In either event he would be entitled to compensation.

Mr. Hardev Singh, however, urged that assuming that the appellant is entitled to compensation for taking over of his land, the land having formed part of the compensation pool on the issue of notification under s. 12 and the allotment in this case being one not under the noti-fication of the Government of Punjab dated 8th July 1949 but o fresh allotment under s. 10, the compensation would only be payable ;n the form of land under rule 49: There is two-fold fallacy in this sub-m1ss1on. Indisputably the land was allotted to the appellant under the conditions published by the notification of the Government of Punjah dated 8th July 1949 ands. 10 does not purport to make fresh allot-ment. It merely t~kes note of the earlier allotment and assures that if the displaced person has continued to be in possession of the land allotted, on the issue of notification under s. 12 and the land becom-ing part of the compensation pool, such allottee would be entitled to continue in possession of such property on the same conditions on which he held the property immediately before the date of acquisition by issue of notification under s. 12 till the property continues to vest in the Central Government and further he would be entitled to the transfer of su.ch property to him presumably on permanent se!tlement basis as and by way of _compensation. Section 10 does not permit .,. construction as canvassed for by Mr. Hardev Singh that fresh allot-ment could be made under s. 10. 7-253SC!i79

Further, rule 49 which proYides that compensation shall be in the form of land will have to be read with r. 69 which reads as under

''69. Saving-Nothing in this Chapter shall apply to agricultural land allotted in the States of Punjab and Patiala and East Punjab States Union under section 10 of the Act."

It will immediately appear that where allotment was made under the conditions published by the notification of the GoverllDK'nt of Punjab dated 8th July 1949, the whole of Chapter VIII of the 1955 Rules which includes Rules 49 to 69 would not apply. In this case appellant was allotted agricultural land and th·~ allotment was under th0 notification hereinbefore mentioned which has been set out in rule lO(a) and in that situation provisions contained in Chapter VIII of the Rules would not be attracted. Therefore, rule 49 cannot be c:alled in aid by the respondents.

The last contention, however, is that if the appellant is displaced person and he was being allotted land against verified claim in respect of agricultural land held by him in Pakistan, ordinarily compemation for land taken over must be in the form of land and not in form of cash. Ordinarily it should be so. But in this connection the e~:peri­ence gained by the Government in disposing of the claims cannot be overlooked. There were allottees of small plots of land. Once allotc ment is mad·~ and thereafter the land is taken over by the Govcrrment fresh allotment cannot be in compact area and if small plot of land is allotted at distant place the allottee would be put to serious disadvantage. Realising this position, at meeting between th~ olficers of the Punjab Government and the Ministry of Rehabilitation of the Central Government held on 27th August 1957, decision was taken which was notifi.cd by the Press Note Annexure 'A' of the very date. It provides that there are largo number of displaced land allottees whose whole or part of the land were acquired by the Government for various public purposes and their claim for cash compensation is pending. Such of the allottees who have acquired permanent rights and others who arc quasi permanent allottees and small pieces of their land are acquired by th~ Government, should send their applications to the Doputy Secretary to the Government of Punjab, Rehabilitation Depart-ment, Jullundur, giving various details therein. The decision further provided that quasi permanent land allottes whose land exceeding two standard acres have been acquired should apply for alternative allotment to the. Land Claims Officer, and those whose land admrnsur-ing less than two standard acres is acquired should apply for payment of compensation in cash. The decision was the deci!>ion of the O::ntral

Government and the Punjab State Government that displaced persons · to whom lands were allotted on quasi permanent basis, part of which was taken over for public purposes by the Government and where the land acquired was less than two standard acres in area, payment of compensation would be in cash and applications were accordingly invit"d. This decision was affirmed in the letter of the Secretary to Government of Punjab, Rehabilitation Department, addressed to his counterpart in the Central Government wherein after referring to the meeting dated 27th August, 1957 and the decision arrived at it, he r"quested the Central Government that the appellant would be entitled to cash compensation because the land taken over from him was vo>S than two standard acres and was covered by the decision arrived at, at the meeting and that the Central Government should concur in paym"nt of compensation out of the funds allotted for setting up the colony for which the land was acquired. In the face of this position it is difficult to entertain the contentian that comp.;nsation in cash was never payable for agricultural land taken over from quasi perma-nent allottee. It was said that such decision which runs counter to th;, statute cannot be given effect to by the Court. Once Chapter Vil! of 1955 Rules and especially rule 49 which provides for payment of <0ompensatian in the form of land is out of the way, we sec nothing in the statute which would debar quasi-p.;rmanent allottec asking for compensation in cash and the Government paying the same. In fact the appellant has averred in his petition and in his affidavit that on former occasion he was paid compensation in cash and the denial is on the ground of want of information which can frankly be styled as vague one.

Now it is indisputable that the appellant was quasi permanent allottee and that his land admeasuring 1 standard acre and 15} uni.ts had been taken over by the, Central Government in July 1953. In view of the decision n:corded in the Press Note referred to above he would be e'ntitled to compensation in cash which has not been paid to him. The appellant would be entitled to compensation in cash for the intere1;t that he had in th~ land because land was taken awa v from him. What is the quantum of compensation will have to b~ worked out according to law and the modalities of determining the compensation.

This appeal accordingly succeeds and is allowed. The respondents are directed to pay the compensation in cash to the appellant for the fand admeasuring 1 standard acre and 15} units taken over in July

The respondents

1953. As there is delay of nearly 25 years, the respondents should pay the compensation as directed herein within period of six months from today. Respondents should also pay the costs of the appellant and bear their own costs.

Appeal allow<'d.