RAMESH PARSRAM MALANI & ORS versus THE STATE OF TELANGANA & ORS.

[2019] 15 S.C.R. 1051

RAMESH PARSRAM MALANI & ORS

THE STATE OF TELANGANA & ORS.

(Civil appeal No.7477 of 2019)

OCTOBER 22, 2019

[L. NAGESWARA RAO AND HEMANT GUPTA, JJ.]

Displaced Persons (Compensation & Rehabilitation) Act,1954 – ss.16, 17 and 20 – Displaced Persons (Compensation &Rehabilitation) Rules, 1955 – r. 51 – Father of appellant wasresident of Sindh in the present day Pakistan and after partition,came to settle in Hyderabad – Father of appellant asserted that hewas owner of 83.11 acres of land in Sindh and the same was verifiedby the settlement claim officer – On basis of that order, appellantapplied for land in lieu of 83.11 acres of land left by him – Appellantwas allotted 40.4 standard acres of land – The father of appellantdid not raise any claim for allotment of additional land till his death– Thereafter, appellant claimed allotment of 43.7 standard acresagainst balance of verified claim – The Chief Commissioner ofLand Administration (CCLA) allotted the land measuring 19.26standard acres – The questions which were required to be examinedwere as to whether the Central Government having transferred landto the State Government, could make allotment to the displacedpersons after May 24, 1980 – And, whether CCLA, as delegate ofthe Central Government, could allot land though he exercises theappellate powers, the power of allotment having been vested withthe Managing Officer as per s. 17 of the Act – Held: The Circulardated May 23, 1980 relates to administration, management anddisposal of compensation which is in terms of s. 16 of the Act – S.16(2)(b) of the Act empowers the Central Government to constitutesuch authority or Corporation for the purposes of sub-section (1)i.e. custody, management and disposal of compensation pool – TheCentral Government is competent to constitute any authority orCorporation for the same purpose – Therefore, the transfer of landforming part of compensation pool to the State Government haslegislative sanction in terms of s. 16(2)(b) of the Act – In the instantcase, the allotment was made by the CCLA as delegatee of the

ACentral Government – The Settlement Commissioner had no powerto make allotment of land falling in the compensation pool eitherbefore May 23, 1980 or thereafter – Insofar as the power of CCLAin terms of the scheme of the Act is concerned, the allotment of allevacuee land is governed by the Act, therefore, the officerscompetent to make allotment are the Managing Officers, whereasBpower of appeal and revision are to be exercised by the SettlementCommissioner or the Chief Settlement Commissioner – The CCLAin terms of the scheme of the Act has no power to make allotment ofland as he exercises the appellate or revisional jurisdiction as adelegate of the Central Government – The power of allotment isCvested with Managing Officer only in terms of s. 17 of the Act.

Dismissing the appeal, the Court

HELD: 1.The first and the foremost question which requiresto be examined is as to whether the Central Government havingtransferred land to the State Government, could make allotmentDto the displaced persons after May 24, 1980. Another questionwhich arises is whether CCLA, as delegatee of the CentralGovernment, could allot land though he exercises the appellatepowers, the power of allotment having been vested with theManaging Officer as per Section 17 of the Act. [Para 22] [1074-

2. In the State of Andhra Pradesh, initially letter wascommunicated on December 9, 1964 in response to thecommunication from the Government of India regarding windingup of certain organization of the Central Government and transferFof land to the State. However, on May 24, 1980, the transfer ofthe land in compensation pool to the State Government wascompleted when the circular contemplating administration,management and disposal of remaining undisposed evacueeproperty was issued. The circular provides that the CentralGovernment is to be given 15% of realised value of the propertiesGafter sale and the balance sale amount was permitted to beretained by the State Government. The transfer of land to theState Government is complete w.e.f. June 1, 1980 subject to theconditions specified in the Circular dated May 23, 1980 such aspayment of 15% of realised value to the Central Government.HEven if, such value is not paid by the State Government, it is

between the State Government and the Central Government andnot for any third party to make grievance or dispute the same.[Para 23] [1075-A-C]

3. All evacuee property in terms of notification issued bythe Central Government from time to time in terms of Section 12of the Displaced Persons (Compensation & Rehabilitation) Act,1954 forms part of compensation pool under Section 14 of theAct. Section 16 of the Act empowers the Central Government totake such measures as is considered necessary or expedient forthe custody, management and disposal of compensation pool. TheCircular dated May 23, 1980 relates to administration,management and disposal of compensation which is in terms ofSection 16 of the Act. Section 16(2)(b) of the Act empowers theCentral Government to constitute such authority or corporationfor the purposes of sub-section (1) i.e. custody, management anddisposal of compensation pool. The Central Government iscompetent to constitute any authority or corporation for the samepurpose. Therefore, the transfer of land forming part ofcompensation pool to the State Government has legislativesanction in terms of Section 16(2)(b) of the Act. [Para 24][1075-D-F]

4. The argument raised by the appellant that the CentralGovernment has notified the authorities to give effect to theprovisions of the Act, therefore, the Central Government hasretained control and administration of the evacuee property, ismisconceived. The land forming part of the compensation poolwas transferred to the State Government and the officers of theState Government were entrusted with the functions of ManagingOfficer or Settlement Commissioner, as the case may be. Theallotment of all evacuee land is governed by the Act, therefore,the officers competent to make allotment are the ManagingOfficers, whereas power of appeal and revision are to be exercisedby the Settlement Commissioner or the Chief SettlementCommissioner. Such notifications facilitate the exercise of powersunder the Act by the officers of the State Government in respectof land which stood transferred to the State Government. TheCCLA in terms of the scheme of the Act has no power to makeallotment of land as he exercises the appellate or revisional

Ajurisdiction as delegate of the Central Government. The powerof allotment is vested with the Managing Officer only in terms ofSection 17 of the Act. [Para 28] [1078-D-G]

5. The allotment was made by the CCLA as delegatee ofthe Central Government. The Settlement Commissioner had noBpower to make allotment of land falling in compensation pool eitherbefore May 23, 1980 or thereafter. Since the land stoodtransferred to the State Government, the CCLA as delegateeof the Central Government, could not deal with the land formingpart of compensation pool which stood transferred to the StateGovernment. [Para 29] [1078-G-H; 1079-A]

6. On this ground alone, the allotment made in favour ofthe appellant on February 26, 2003 cannot be sustained in viewof the Division Bench judgment of Punjab and Haryana High Courtin Ram Chander, as approved by this Court in Pala Singh. thisCourt finds that the Central Government or its delegatee couldDnot allot land after the same was transferred to the State as partof the package deal. [Para 30] [1079-B]

7. However, this Court is unable to agree with the HighCourt that transfer of land to the State Government takes suchtransferred land out of compensation pool. The land transferredEto the State Government continues to be part of compensationpool but it is required to be disposed of by the Officers of theState who have been conferred the powers of the Managing Officeror of the Settlement Commissioner for the settlement of thedisplaced persons alone. It is only after the displaced personsFare settled, the State Government may utilize the land for otherpurposes. [Para 31] [1079-C-D]

Amar Singh & Ors. v. Custodian, Evacuee Property,Punjab & Anr. AIR 1957 SC 599 : [1957] SCR 801– referred to.

Ram Chander v. The State of Punjab & Ors.(1968) 2 ILR P&H 651 –approved.

Pala Singh (Deceased) by LRs. v. Union of India &Ors.(1987) Suppl. SCC 201 : [1987] SCR 624 ;Chameli Devi & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors.

RAMESH PARSRAM MALANI & ORS. v.STATE OF TELANGANA & ORS.

CWP No.14772 of 2000 decided on November 14,2017 ;Union of India v. International SindhiPanchayats & Ors. Civil Appeal No. 6079 of 2010decided on April 28, 2014 – relied on.

Case Law Reference

B[1957] SCR 801 relied onPara 8(1968) 2 ILR P&H 651 approvedPara 26[1987] SCR 624 relied onPara 27

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No.7477 of2019

From the Judgment and Order dated 12.02.2016 of the High Courtof Judicature at Hyderabad for the State of Telangana and the State ofAndhra Pradesh in Writ Petition No.4066 of 2006

Ms. Pinki Anand, ASG, J. Ramchandar Rao, AAG, Kapil Sibal,M.S. Prasad, Ms. Aishwarya Bhati, Guru Krishnakumar, V.Giri,C.S. Vaidyanathan, K. Rana Mukherjee, Sr. Advs., P. Ram Reddy,Krishna Kumar Singh, Ramesh Kumar Mishra, Tripurari Roy, VarunThakur, Brajesh Pandey, Ms. Shraddha Saran, Varinder Kumar Sharma,Sudhakar Rao Ambati, Nithin Pavuluri, Ms. Chitrangada R, Ms. CelesteAgarwal, Ms. Kirti K., K. Shivraj Choudhuri, G. V. R. Choudary, HarshSinghal, A. Sudhakar Rao, Tanmaya Agarwal, Chandra Mohan Anisetty,Saurabh Mishra, Ms. Samridhi Pal, Abhishek Singh, Ms. Aashnaa Bhatia,Onkar Singh, Arun Verma Sayooj Mohandas M., Ms. Snidha Mehra,Ms. Kirti Dua, Ms. Tanisha Samanta, B. V. Balaram Das, B. KrishnaPrasad, T. V. Ratnam, P. Venkat Reddy, Prashant Tyagi, Dr. RajaramPunna, Akshay Nagarajan, Anirudh Gupta, P. Srinivas Reddy,M/s. Venkat Palwai Law Associates, D. Bharat Kumar, Tadimala BaskarGowtham, Aman Shukla, Abhijit Sengupta K. Venkat Rao, Ms. KanikaSharma, Venkateshwar Rao Anumolu, Advs. for the appearing parties.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

HEMANT GUPTA, J.

1. The legality and validity of an order passed by the ChiefCommissioner of Land Administration, Andhra Pradesh[1] on February26, 2003 is subject matter of consideration in the present appeal. Vide

1for short, ‘CCLA’

Aaforesaid order, 19.26 standard acres of land in Village Poppalguda,District Ranga Reddy was allotted to the appellant by the CCLA (as adelegatee of the Central Government) as balance of verified claim of43.7 standard acres of land.

2. Some facts would be necessary to appreciate the contentionBraised by the parties. One Parsram Ramchand Malani, father of theappellant, was resident of Sindh in the present-day Pakistan and afterpartition, came to settle in Hyderabad. The father of the appellantasserted that he was owner of 83.11 acres of land in Sindh. Such landwas verified vide an order passed by Settlement Claim Officer, Bombayon November 22, 1952 (copy submitted by the appellant during the courseCof the arguments). On the basis of such order, the father of theappellant applied for 200 acres of land in lieu of 83.11 acres of land leftby him in the West Pakistan (copy submitted by the appellant during thecourse of the arguments). It is on the basis of such application that 40.4standard acres of land (323.10 local acres) was allotted in DistrictDHyderabad East, Village Bata Singaram, measuring 32.12 standard acres(262.11 local acres) and in Hyderabad West, Village Boinapallymeasuring 7.8 standard acres (60.39 local acres). There is no disputebetween the parties till such allotment. Such allotment was made priorto commencement of the Displaced Persons (Compensation &Rehabilitation) Act, 1954[2]. Therefore, to regularise such allotment,Eanother letter was issued on March 24, 1956 after commencement ofthe Act. The father of the appellant did not raise any claim for allotmentof additional land till his death on August 10, 1988. It may be mentionedthat Rule 51 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation & Rehabilitation)Rules, 1955[3] provides for scale of compensation in the form of land inFaccordance with the Land Allotment Scheme in the States of Punjaband Patiala and the East Punjab States Union as set out in AppendixXIV. perusal of Appendix XIV would show that against areaabandoned of 83 standard acres, the entitlement is allotment of 45.8¾acres. It has also come on record that the father of the appellant, thedisplaced person, sold the entire land allotted to him soon afterGallotment.

3. The appellant addressed letter to the CCLA on March 15,2001 claiming allotment of 43.7 standard acres against balance ofverified claim. The CCLA addressed the letter to the Settlement

2for short, ‘Act’H3for short, ‘Rules’

Officer, Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India on May 5, 2001but no response was received from the Ministry of Home Affairs. OnFebruary 21, 2003, the appellant made another representation to theCCLA pursuant to which CCLA allotted the land measuring 19.26standard acres (148.3 local acres) in Survey No. 301 to 308, 325 to 328and 331 part in favour of the appellant on February 26, 2003, which isthe subject matter of present appeal.

4. The orders of CCLA were stayed by memo of Governmentof Andhra Pradesh dated March 20, 2003. The Secretary to RevenueDepartment in the Government of Andhra Pradesh initiated suo motoproceedings in respect of six cases of allotment of evacuee property inHyderabad and Ranga Reddy District. Subsequently, show-causenotice was issued to the appellant on August 20, 2003. The appellantfiled writ petition before High Court of Andhra Pradesh challenging theshow-cause notice and the stay order dated March 20, 2003. The HighCourt disposed of the writ petition on November 14, 2003 with adirection to the appellant to approach the Revisional Authority. TheRevisional Authority dismissed the revision filed by the State on June 28,2006 holding that the allotment of land is in accordance with the Act.5. The said order was challenged by the State through the DistrictCollector, Ranga Reddy District by way of writ petition before theHigh Court at Hyderabad. Such writ petition was allowed on February12, 2016. It is the said order which is subject matter of challenge in thepresent appeal.

6. The High Court has, inter alia, found that CCLA was not thecompetent authority to make allotment of land, inter alia,for the reasonthat there was no delegation by the Central Government in his favour tomake allotment and secondly, for the reason that the land stood transferredto 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 suffersfrom delay and laches.

7. brief resume of the Act, process of allotment and subsequentrepeal of the Act needs to be recapitulated. In the aftermath of partitionof the country in 1947, there was large scale movement of populationfrom one part of the country to another country. Since, large scale ofpopulation moved, there was question of the rehabilitation of thepopulation migrating from one country to another to deal with the property

1058SUPREME COURT REPORTS

Aof the population who left the country. The property of the persons wholeft the country vested in the Union under the Administration of EvacueeProperty Act, 1950. The custodian was responsible for preservation,management and administration of evacuee property as was done byvarious State legislatures. However, the law governing allotment ofevacuee property to displaced persons was statutorily provided by theBAct. The procedure was that the persons who migrated to the countrywill apply for verification of their property including land left behind inWest Pakistan and such property was verified on the basis of revenuerecord either received by the Government of India or verified by therevenue authorities in Pakistan. Such verification of the property wasCcalled as verified claim in terms of Section 2(e) of the Act. Such verifiedclaim entitles the migrant defined as displaced person in Section 2(b) ofthe Act for compensation in the manner prescribed under Section 8 ofthe Act. The property left by the persons migrating to Pakistan (evacueepersons) was put in the compensation pool as defined in Section 2(a) ofthe Act and was source of resettling the displaced persons.D8. The process of resettling the displaced persons is based uponthe following steps as found by this Court in Amar Singh & Ors. v.Custodian, Evacuee Property, Punjab & Anr.[4]:

“1. Registration and verification of land claims.E2. Assessment and valuation of such claims.

3. Classification of the villages and of lands of evacuees availablefor allotment.

4. Allocation of the claims to various areas with reference to suchclassification.F5. Allotment of lands to individuals with reference to the valuationof their claims, guided by various considerations, priorities andpreferences and so forth administratively determined.”

9. The first step is registration and verification of land claims i.e.

Gverification of the property such as land in the present day Pakistan.The assessment and valuation of such claims is the second step which isrequired, for which Rule 51 read with Appendix XIV prescribes thescale of land which can be allotted in view of verified claim of the propertyleft in the present day Pakistan. The third step is identification of evacuee

land available which forms part of the compensation pool. Such landincluding urban and rural land available for allotment with reference tothe valuation of the claims guided by other consideration, priorities andpreferences.

10. The displaced person as defined in Section 2(b) of the Actincludes successor-in-interest of any such person. Such displaced personhaving verified claim has to make an application for payment ofcompensation on or before June 30, 1955. The Settlement Commissionerwould make an inquiry in the manner prescribed to determine the amountof compensation. displaced person is entitled to payment of cashcompensation or compensation in terms of land out of compensationpool in terms of Section 8 of the Act. Section 12 empowers the CentralGovernment to acquire any evacuee property for public purpose beinga purpose connected with the relief and rehabilitation of displaced persons.In terms of sub-section (4) of Section 12, all evacuee property acquiredin terms of sub-section (1) or sub-section (3) forms part of thecompensation pool. Section 16 of the Act empowers the CentralGovernment to take such measures as it considers necessary or expedientfor the custody, management and disposal of the compensation pool.Section 16(2)(b) empowers the Central Government to constitute suchauthority or corporation as it may deem fit for the management anddisposal of the compensation pool.

11. The Managing Officer or the Managing Corporation iscompetent to transfer any property out of compensation pool in terms ofSection 20 of the Act but the allotment is as per the valuation determinedby the Settlement Commissioner in terms of Section 20(1)(c) of the Act.The relevant provisions of the statute read as under:

“THE DISPLACED PERSONS (COMPENSATION &REHABILITATION) ACT, 1954

2(a) “compensation pool” means the compensation pool constitutedunder section 14;

2(b) “displaced person” means any person who, on account ofthe setting up of the Dominions of India and Pakistan, or on accountof civil disturbances or the fear of such disturbances in any areanow forming part of West Pakistan, has after the first day ofMarch, 1947, left, or been displaced from, his place of residencein such area and who has been subsequently residing in India, and

includes any person who is resident in any place now formingpart of India and who for that reason is unable or has beenrendered unable to manage, supervise or control any immovableproperty belonging to him in West Pakistan, and also includes thesuccessors- in interest of any such person;

4. Application for payment of compensation. – (1) The CentralGovernment shall, from time to time, but not later than the thirtiethday of June, 1955, by notification in the Official Gazette, requireall displaced persons having verified claim to make applicationsfor the payment of compensation and any such notification maybe issued with reference to displaced persons residing in any Stateor in any one of group of States.

8. Form and manner of payment of compensation. – (1) Adisplaced person shall be paid out of the compensation pool theamount of net compensation determined under sub- section (3) ofsection 7 as being payable to him, and subject to any rules thatmay be made under this Act, the Settlement Commissioner orany other officer or authority authorised by the Chief SettlementCommissioner in this behalf may make such payment in any oneof the following forms or partly in one and partly in any otherform, namely:-

(a) in cash;

(b) in Government bonds;

(c) by sale to the displaced person of any property from thecompensation pool and setting off the purchase money againstthe compensation payable to him;

(d) by any other mode of transfer to the displaced person of anyproperty from the compensation pool and setting off the valuationof the property against the compensation payable to him;

(e) by transfer of shares or debentures in any company orcorporation;

(f) in such other form as may be prescribed.

(2) For the purpose of payment of compensation under this Act,the Central Government may, by rules, provide for all or any ofthe following matters, namely:-

(a) the classes of displaced persons to whom compensation maybe paid;

(b) the scales according to which, the form and manner in which,and the instalment by which, compensation may be paid to differentclasses of displaced persons;

(c) the valuation of all property, shares and debentures to betransferred to displaced persons;

(d) any other matter which is to be, or may be, prescribed.

xxxx

14. Compensation pool. – (1) For the purpose of payment ofcompensation and rehabilitation grants to displaced persons, thereshall be constituted compensation pool which shall consist of—

(a) all evacuee property acquired under section 12, including thesale proceeds of any such property and all profits and incomeaccruing from such property;

(b) such cash balances lying with the Custodian as may, by orderof the Central Government, be transferred to the compensationpool;

(c) such contributions, in any form whatsoever, as may be madeto the compensation pool by the Central Government or any StateGovernment;

(d) such other assets as may be prescribed.

(2) The compensation pool shall vest in the Central Governmentfree from all encumbrances and shall be utilised in accordancewith the provisions of this Act and the rules made thereunder.

xxxx

16. Management of compensation pool. – (1) The CentralGovernment may take such measures as it considers necessaryor expedient for the custody, management and disposal of the

Acompensation pool in order that it may be effectively utilised inaccordance with the provisions of this Act.

(2) In particular, and without prejudice to the generality of theforegoing power, the Central Government may, for the purposesreferred to in sub-section (1), by notification in the Official Gazette.-

(a) appoint such officers as it may deem fit (hereinafter referredto as managing officers); or

(b) constitute such authority or corporation, as it may deem fit(hereinafter referred to as managing corporation).

(3) Every managing corporation shall be constituted under suchname and shall consist of such number of persons as may bespecified in the notification, and every such corporation shall be abody corporate having perpetual succession and common sealand shall by the said name sue and be sued:

DProvided that one-third of the members of every managingcorporation shall be non-officials.

xxxx

17. Functions and duties of managing officers and managingcorporations.- (1) All managing officers or managing corporationsshall perform such functions as may be assigned to them by orunder this Act under the general superintendence and control ofthe Chief Settlement Commissioner.

(2) Subject to the provisions of this Act and the rules madethereunder, managing officer or managing corporation may takeFsuch measures as he or it considers necessary or expedient forthe purpose of securing, administering, preserving, managing ordisposing of any property in the compensation pool entrusted tohim or it and generally for the purpose of satisfactorily dischargingany of the duties imposed on him or it by or under this Act andmay for any such purpose as aforesaid, do all acts and incur allGexpenses necessary or incidental thereto.

xxxx

20. Power to transfer property out of the compensationpool. – (1) Subject to any rules that may be made under this Act,the managing officer or managing corporation may transfer anyproperty out of the compensation pool-

(a) by sale of such property to displaced person or any associationof displaced persons, whether incorporated or not, or to any otherpersons, whether the property is sold by public auction orotherwise;

(b) by lease or any such property to displaced person or anyassociation of displaced person, whether incorporated or not, orto any other person;

(c) by allotment of any such property to displaced person or anassociation of displaced persons whether incorporated or not, orto any other person, on such valuation as the SettlementCommissioner may determine;

(d) in the case of share of an evacuee in company, by transferof such share to displaced personor any association of displacedpersons, whether incorporated or not, or to any other person.

12. To give effect to the provisions of the Statute, the CentralGovernment framed the Rules in exercise of the power conferred underSection 40 of the Act. Rule 3 provides for an application for compensationto be submitted by displaced person having verified claim and in caseof death of displaced person, by his successor-in-interest. Rule 11contemplates verification of claim by the Settlement Commissioner. Rule49 contemplates that displaced person having verified claim in respectof an agricultural land be paid compensation by allotment of agriculturalland. The scale of compensation in the form of land is set out in AppendixXIV. In terms of Rule 52, the Central Government may from time totime having regard to the availability of land, determine the maximumarea of land which may be allotted in the first instance to person havinga verified claim for agricultural land. Rule 86 deals with an applicationfor compensation by successor-in-interest. Some of the Rules whichare relevant for examining the issues in hand are reproduced hereunder:

A“THE DISPLACED PERSONS (COMPENSATION &REHABILITATION) RULES, 1955

3. Persons entitled to make application for compensation -An application for compensation may be made by displacedperson having verified claim or if such displaced person is dead,by his successor-in-interest.

xxxx

11. Enquiry by the Settlement Commissioner on receipt ofduplicate copy of compensation application - (1) On receiptof duplicate copy of an application for compensation from aSettlement Officer, the Settlement Commissioner (Headquarters)shall verify the assessed value of the claim as stated in theapplication, with the final order in respect thereof in the claimsrecord.

xxxx

34. Date of transfer. – Where any property is transferred to anyperson under this chapter, the property shall be deemed to havebeen transferred to him:-

(d) in any other case, from such date as the Central Governmentmay, by general or special order, specify.

xxxx

49. Compensation normally to be paid in the form of land -Except as otherwise provided in this chapter, displaced personhaving verified claim in respect of agricultural land shall, as faras possible, be paid compensation by allotment of agricultural land.Provided that where any such person wishes to have his claimsatisfied against property other than agricultural land, he maypurchase such property by bidding for it at an open auction or bytendering for it and in such case the purchase price of the propertyshall be adjusted against the compensation due on his verifiedclaim for agricultural land which shall be converted into cash atthe rate specified in rule 56.

xxxx

51. Scale of compensation in the form of land - The scale forthe allotment of land as compensation in respect of verifiedclaim for agricultural land shall be the same as in the quasi-permanent Land Allotment Scheme in the States of Punjab andPatiala and the East Punjab States Union as set out in AppendixXIV.

Explanation - If any public dues are recoverable, the allottablearea shall be reduced correspondingly.

52. Manner of allotment of land - The Central Governmentmay, from time to time, having regard to the availability of land,determine the maximum area of land which may be allotted in thefirst instance to person having verified claim for agriculturalland. Such area shall be the area permissible under the schemereferred to in rule 51 or thirty standard acres whichever is less:

Provided that the balance, if any, of the area permissible forallotment according to the scale referred to in Rule 51 shall begiven later in instalments as and when more land becomes availablefor allotment.

xxxx

86. Proof by successor-in-interest - (1) On receipt of anapplication for compensation from any person claiming to be asuccessor-in-interest of any deceased claimant as provided in rule4, the Regional Settlement Commissioner or the SettlementOfficer, as the case may be, take steps for the determination ofhis claim.

xxxx”

13. The Revenue Department of Government of Andhra Pradeshon December 9, 1964 in response to the communication of the RegionalSettlement Commissioner, Bombay had informed its officials, videAnnexure P/2, that the Settlement Organization was in the process ofwinding up and that they had to find ways and means for speeding upthe process by transferring certain items of this work to the StateAuthorities. The Government of India communicated the sanction ofthe President to transfer certain items of work which were dealt with bythe Office of the Regional Settlement Commissioner, Bombay to the

AState Government on payment of agency charges. The items of worktransferred were collection of rent dues of acquired evacuee properties;disposal of remaining acquired evacuee properties including urbanagricultural lands; disposal of unacquired evacuee properties; disposalof rural agricultural lands and recoveries in respect of evacuee rightstransferred to locals; collection of installments on price of land transferredBon installment basis; and collection of lease money from the occupantsof evacuee lands on percentage basis of the amount collected by theState Government.

14. It is thereafter, on May 24, 1980, the Ministry of Supply andRehabilitation Department, Department of Rehabilitation, GovernmentCof India issued letter in respect of transfer of items of work relating toadministration, management and disposal of undisposed acquired evacueelands/properties and realisation of rental demands etc. It wascommunicated as under:

“Subject: Transfer of items of work relating to administration,Dmanagement and disposal of undisposed of acquired evacueelands/properties and realisation of rental demands etc.

Sir,

I am directed to state that the question of administration,Emanagement and disposal of the remaining undisposed of acquiredevacuee lands/properties and realisation of arrears of rentaldemands outstanding against individuals in respect of evacueeproperties in the State of Andhra Pradesh has been underconsideration of the Government of India for some time past.

2. It has been observed that only limited number of acquiredevacuee agricultural lands/properties remain to be disposed of.Besides, arrears on account of rural and urban evacuee propertieswhich run into considerable amount have become long overduefor recovery and their realisation is presenting considerabledifficulty.

3. With view to effecting economy in expenditure and ensuringproper arrangement for administration, management and disposalof acquired evacuee lands/properties and recovery of arrears ofrent of rural and urban evacuee properties it has been decided inpublic interest to transfer the aforesaid items of work to the Govt.Hof Andhra Pradesh for disposal of the residuary work in

satisfactory manner and for carrying out the purposes of theDisplaced Persons (Compensation & Rehabilitation) Act, 1954and the Rules framed thereunder.

4. I am directed to convey the sanction of the President of Indiato the transfer of the work relating to administration, managementand disposal of the remaining undisposed of acquired lands/evacueeproperties and recovery of arrears of rent etc. to StateGovernment on the terms and conditions specified against each:

5. I. URBAN EVACUEE PROPERTIES AND URBAN EVACUEE LANDS.

Sl. Description of assets Payment to be made by No. the State Govt. to the Govt. of India (a) 39 properties in the 15% of the reserve price. Districts of Khamman, Medak, and Mahboobnagar, the reserve price of which is Rs.1,62,000/- (Rupees one lakh and sixty two thousands). (b) xx xx

(c) (d)

The properties, would, thereafter, be managed and disposed of bythe State Government who would pay to the Government of India15% of the reserve price/market value as assessed in 1953 or15% of the value realised as result of disposal of these properties,as the case may be. The balance amount would be retained bythe State Government.

II. RURALAGRICULTURALLAND.

xxxxxxIII.xxxxxxIV. DISPOSAL OF JUDICIALCASES RELATING TOEVACUEE PROPERTIES IN THE STATE OF ANDHRAPRADESH

1068SUPREME COURT REPORTS

[2019] 15 S.C.R.

xxxxxx

V.xxxxxx

VI.RESIDUARYWORK IN THE SETTLEMENTWING

Residuary work relating to the properties etc. already disposed ofwill be taken over by the Sate Govt. and dealt with by themhereafter.

VII.RECORDS

The files pertaining to the litigation work referred to in item No.(V) above will be handed over by representative of thisDepartment at Hyderabad. The files pertaining to the residuarywork vide para (VI) above will also be transferred to the StateGovernment. In addition, there are about 6000 closed files in theCentral Record Room of the Settlement Wing pertaining to theproperties already disposed of. Necessary arrangements fortransferring this record would be made by this Department. Theexpenditure on their transportation from New Delhi to Hyderabadwould be met by this Department.

VIII.TRANSFER OF WORK UNDER THE EVACUEEINTEREST (SEPARATION) ACT, 1951

The work relating to administration, management and disposal ofcomposite properties in terms of the Evacuee Interest (Separation)Act, 1951 shall stand transferred to the State Government witheffect from 1.6.1980.

(a) The State Government shall appoint Competent Officerunder Section 4 and an Appellate Officer under Section 13 of thesaid Act, to deal with the composite properties in respect of whichproceedings under any provisions of the said Act have alreadybeen started or may be started hereafter.

(b) After the evacuee interest is separated, the State Governmentshall deal with and dispose of the properties in accordance withthe Evacuee Interest (Separation) Act, 1951 and the DisplacedPersons (Compensation & Rehabilitation) Act, 1954.

(c) The State Government shall pay to the Govt. of India thefollowing share out of the sale proceeds of evacuee share in thecomposite properties:

RAMESH PARSRAM MALANI & ORS. v.

STATE OF TELANGANA & ORS. [HEMANT GUPTA, J.]

(i) In the case of urban evacuee properties and urban evacueelands. 15% of the amount realised.

(ii) In the case of rural evacuee lands/ properties.5% of theamount realised.

The remaining share of the sale proceeds in the evacuee interestshall be retained by the State Government on account of theiradministrative and other charges.

The entire expenditure on account of the administration,management and disposal of the composite properties in AndhraPradesh and the establishment of the Competent Officer andAppellate Officer shall be borne by the State Government.

IX. THE REMAINING UNDISPOSED OF URBAN EVACUEEPROPERTIES URBAN EVACUEE LANDS AND RURALAGRICULTURALLANDS.

All the lands/properties held and dealt with by the Custodian ofEvacuee Property under the Administration of Evacuee PropertyAct, 1950 which have not yet been finally disposed of under theprovisions of the aforesaid Act or the Displaced Persons(Compensation & Rehabilitation) Act, 1954 shall stand transferredto the Government of Andhra Pradesh with effect from 1.6.1980.

6. The arrangement detailed above shall not in any way affectthe payment of compensation to the displaced persons havingunsatisfied claims for properties left in former West Pakistan inaccordance with the provisions of the Displaced Persons(Compensation & Rehabilitation) Act, 1954. Their claims shall,as usual, be dealt with the Officers of the Government of India.The liability to satisfy the claims of the displaced persons shallcontinue to rest with the Government of India.

7.xxxxxx

8. The properties mentioned above should be deemed to havebeen completely transferred to the Government of Andhra Pradeshwith effect from 1.6.1980. The entire sale price thereof payableon this account by the State Government in respect of variouscategories of properties will accordingly become due on 1.6.1980and shall be paid in six equal half-yearly installments without

payment of any interest thereon. The first half-yearly instalmentdue on 1.6.1980 shall be paid by the State Government on 31.3.1981and subsequent half-yearly instalments will be computed fromthat date. However, if the instalments are not paid on due datesas mentioned above, interest will be payable on any unpaid amountfor the period of late payment, the rate of interest being fixed bythe Central Government from time to time. The total amountpayable by the State Govt. in this respect to the State Governmentby the Deputy Chief Settlement Commissioner (G), SettlementWing, Department of Rehabilitation, New Delhi.

9.xxxxxx”

1) It is, thereafter, Ministry of Supply and Rehabilitation,Government of India issued different notifications authorisingOfficers of the State to discharge the functions of the CentralGovernment under the Act. The notifications dated June 23, 1980appointing Tehsildar as Managing Officer; Joint Collectors asSettlement Commissioners and Commissioner of Survey &Settlement as the Settlement Commissioner in respect of propertyforming part of compensation pool within the State reads as under:

“S.O. 2006- In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section(1) of Section 3 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation andRehabilitation) Act, 1954 (44 of 1954). The Central Governmenthereby appoints all Tehsildars of various Talukas in the State ofAndhra Pradesh, to be the Managing Officers for, the purpose ofperforming in addition to their own duties as Tehsildars, thefunctions assigned to Managing Officer by or under said Act, inrespect of properties forming part of compensation pool withinthe State of Andhra Pradesh.

(2) This supersedes Government of India, Ministry ofRehabilitation, office of the Chief Settlement Commissioner’sNotification No. 5(10)/L&R/63-A dated 22.1.1965.

S.O. 2007- In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section(1) of Section 3 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation andRehabilitation) Act, 1954 (44 of 1954), the Central Governmenthereby appoints the Joint Collectors in the State of Andhra Pradeshas Settlement Commissioners in their respective districts for the

purpose of performing in addition to their own duties as JointCollectors the functions assigned to Settlement Commissionerby or under the said Act, in regard to the management, agriculturallands, shops and vacant sites forming part of the CompensationPool within the State of Andhra Pradesh.

S.O. 2008-In exercise of the powers conferred by Section 3 ofthe Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act,1954 (44 of 1954), the Central Government hereby appoints theCommissioner of Survey & Settlement Government of AndhraPradesh, Revenue Department, Hyderabad, is SettlementCommissioner by or under the said Act, in respect of the land andproperties forming part of the Compensation Pool within the Stateof Andhra Pradesh.

S.O. 2009-In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section(1) of Section 34 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation andRehabilitation) Act, 1954 (44 of 1954), the Central Governmenthereby directs that any powers exercisable by it under sub-section(4) of Section 24 and Section 33 of the said Act shall be exercisablealso by the Secretary, Revenue Department, Government ofAndhra Pradesh, Hyderabad in addition to his own duties; in respectof the lands and properties forming part of the Compensation Poolwithin the State of Andhra Pradesh.”

16. The Chief Settlement Commissioner delegated his powers interms of Section 34(2) of the Act to the Commissioner of Survey andSettlement, Government of Andhra Pradesh vide separate notificationof the same date i.e. June 23, 1980, to hear appeals under Section 23,revisions under Section 24 and transfer of cases under Section 28 of theAct.

17. The State issued circular on November 6, 1981 consolidatinginstructions dealing with evacuee property and in respect of transfer ofresiduary work to the State Government. It was, inter alia, mentionedas under:

“Since the properties so declared by the Collectors as EvacueeProperties were acquired by the Government of India under theprovisions of the Displaced Persons (Compensation &Rehabilitation) Act, the Evacuee Properties have become acquired

properties of the Government of India and now stand transferredto the State Government. Thus, no action need to take in respectof acquired Evacuee Properties under this Act.

This Act provides for appointment of various authorities in theSettlement organization, constitution of compensation pool paymentof compensation and Rehabilitation grants to the displacedpersons and disposal pool properties. This Act also provides forappeals, revisions, and other related matters, Rules under this Actwere issued by the G.O.I. as Displaced Persons (Compensationand Rehabilitation) Rules, 1955. It is under this Act and Rules,action has to be taken for the settlement of verified claims of thedisplaced persons and disposal of the pool properties nowtransferred by the Government of India to the State Governmentunder this Act, the Tehsildar is the Managing Officer, who is mainlyconcerned with the management and disposal of property. TheJoint Collector is the Settlement Commissioner within hisjurisdiction. Revisional powers of Chief Settlement Commissionerunder Section 24 of the Act, stand delegated to the Commissionerof Survey Settlement and Land Records and the Secretary toGovernment in Revenue Department.

The Claim of displaced person in respect of acquired propertieshave almost been disposed of by the settlement organization beforethe transfer of residuary work to the State Government. However,some cases may be coming up which need be examined anddisposed under the provision of this Act and Rules framedthereunder.”

18. It is the Managing Officer who has to take such measures asit considers necessary or expedient for the purpose of securing, managingor disposing of any property entrusted to him. It may be mentioned thatthe powers of Settlement Commissioner were vested with theCommissioner of Survey & Settlement of the Government of AndhraPradesh but such post of Survey & Settlement Commissioner wasabolished vide notification dated 21.01.1999 issued by the Governmentof Andhra Pradesh, but no delegation was notified by the CentralGovernment in favour of CCLA.19. Mr. Kapil Sibal, learned senior counsel for the appellant, arguedthat the land falling part of compensation pool is not transferred to theState Government and that the land vests in the Central Government interms of the Act and can be utilized only for the purposes contemplatedin the Act by the Central Government. Admittedly, evacuee propertywas available in the compensation pool and that, as against verified claimof the appellant of 83.11 acres, only 40.4 acres was allotted to the fatherof the appellant. Therefore, the appellant was rightly allotted balanceland of the verified claim by the CCLA on February 26, 2003. It isargued that the High Court has made out completely new case so as toreturn finding that the land vested with the State and that the CCLAwas not competent to allot land to the displaced person. It is also arguedthat the finding of the High Court that there was delay on the part of theappellant to apply for allotment of land is perverse finding as thedisplaced person has right for allotment of equivalent land left by himin West Pakistan in the aftermath of partition. It is the statutory mandateof the Central Government to make allotment to compensate displacedperson in view of the land left by such displaced person. The Act andthe Rules framed thereunder does not contemplate that once allotmenthas been made, it exhausts the right of the displaced person to seekfurther allotment. The displaced person has right to seek equivalent landin India according to the verified claim in respect of land left in Pakistan.To support such argument, reliance was placed on Rule 52 of the Ruleswhere it contemplates that the Central Government may from time totime, having regard to the availability of land, determine the maximumarea of land which may be allotted in the first instance to person havinga verified claim. It is, thus, contended that the Rules contemplate multipleallotments starting with the maximum area of the land which can beallotted to the displaced person. Therefore, the allotment made in theyear 1954 by the Regional Settlement Commissioner will not exhaustthe claim of the displaced person for allotment of more land.

20. Mr. Sibal vehemently argued that the transfer of evacueeproperty in Punjab was complete which is evident from the fact thatPunjab Government enacted Punjab Package Deal Properties (Disposal)Act, 1976[5], whereas, the communication dated May 24, 1980 does notunequivocally transfer the evacuee land to the State of Andhra Pradeshas was the situation in Punjab where evacuee land was transferred in

5for short, ‘Punjab Act’

CDEF

Apursuance of letters dated June 3, 1961, March 5, 1962, March 23, 1963and March 29, 1983 as mentioned in Section 2(1A) of the Punjab Act.The Schedule attached to the Punjab Act, referring to letter dated June3, 1961, provides for sale of 80000 standard acres of surplus land to thePunjab Government at the rate of Rs.450/- per standard acre andsubsequent letters in respect of the payment of sale price. It is arguedBthat there is no outright transfer of land to the State of Andhra Pradeshas in the case of surplus evacuee land in Punjab, therefore, the CentralGovernment retained control and management of land falling incompensation pool and is entitled to allot the evacuee land which wasavailable for disposal to the displaced persons.

21. Mr. V. Giri, learned senior counsel for the respondents arguedthat the appellant is displaced person as defined in Section 2(b) of theAct which includes the successors-in-interest of displaced person. Itis contended that allotment was made in favour of the displaced personin the year 1954 under the Act but such person never objected to aDquasi-judicial order passed by the Regional Settlement Commissionerunder the Act. If the father of the appellant had any subsisting claim orwas not satisfied with the allotment of land, he had right to object tothe allotment of lesser area in appeal or revision. However, the fatherof the appellant had not raised any grievance for more than 32 yearsafter the allotment of land till his death in the year 1988. It is contendedEthat Rule 86 of the Rules is not applicable as the appellant is not raisingclaim of allotment of land for the first time but asserting rights assuccessor-in-interest of the deceased displaced person. Rule 86 comesinto play if the deceased displaced person could not submit his claimduring his life time which claim had to be filed on or before 30[th] JuneF1955 by the successor-in-interest in terms of Section 4 of the Act.Therefore, the claim of the appellant is grossly delayed and not permissiblein terms of the provisions of the Act.

22. The first and the foremost question which requires to beexamined is as to whether the Central Government having transferredGland to the State Government, could make allotment to the displacedpersons after May 24, 1980. Another question which arises is whetherCCLA, as delegatee of the Central Government, could allot land thoughhe exercises the appellate powers, the power of allotment having beenvested with the Managing Officer as per Section 17 of the Act.

23. In the State of Andhra Pradesh, initially letter wascommunicated on December 9, 1964 in response to the communicationfrom the Government of India regarding winding up of certain organizationof the Central Government and transfer of land to the State. However,on May 24, 1980, the transfer of the land in compensation pool to theState Government was completed when the circular contemplatingadministration, management and disposal of remaining undisposedevacuee property was issued. The circular provides that the CentralGovernment is to be given 15% of realised value of the properties aftersale and the balance sale amount was permitted to be retained by theState Government. The transfer of land to the State Government iscomplete w.e.f. June 1, 1980 subject to the conditions specified in theCircular dated May 23, 1980 such as payment of 15% of realised valueto the Central Government. Even if, such value is not paid by theStateGovernment, it is between the State Government and the CentralGovernment and not for any third party to make grievance or disputethe same.

24. All evacuee property in terms of notification issued by theCentral Government from time to time in terms of Section 12 of the Actforms part of compensation pool under Section 14 of the Act. Section16 of the Act empowers the Central Government to take such measuresas is considered necessary or expedient for the custody, managementand disposal of compensation pool. The Circular dated May 23, 1980relates to administration, management and disposal of compensationwhich is in terms of Section 16 of the Act. Section 16(2)(b) of the Actempowers the Central Government to constitute such authority orcorporation for the purposes of sub-section (1) i.e. custody, managementand disposal of compensation pool. The Central Government is competentto constitute any authority or corporation for the same purpose.Therefore, the transfer of land forming part of compensation pool to theState Government has legislative sanction in terms of Section 16(2)(b)of the Act.25. Once the power of disposal has been conferred upon the StateGovernment, and the manner of transfer stands crystalized in the circular,the expression disposal of land by the State Government will includetransfer of title to the purchaser as the State Government could transferonly that much right which the owner i.e. the Central Government had.

ATherefore, disposal of land would mean transfer of land free from allencumbrances by the State Government except to the extent of 15% ofthe realised value as the share of contribution to the Central Government.It is between the Central Government and the State Government toregulate the transfer between them. The management and disposal ofland to the State Government is in terms of Section 16 of the Act.B

26. It is wholly immaterial that the language of letter issued by theCentral Government to the Government of Punjab in the year 1961 isdifferent from the language of the letter issued to the Government ofAndhra Pradesh. The purpose of both the communications is transfer ofevacuee land to the State Governments to give effect to the provisionsCof the Act for consideration which was lumpsum in the State of Punjaband on percentage basis in the State of Andhra Pradesh but the transferof land is complete as far as Central Government is concerned. TheDivision Bench of Punjab and Haryana High Court in Ram Chander v.The State of Punjab & Ors.[6 ]observed that it is financial arrangementDbetween the two Governments by means of letter, for which noinstrument of conveyance under Article 299 of the Constitution has beendrawn up. No such instrument is necessary as the transfer was madeunder the Act and that the provisions of Article 299(1) would not beapplicable in transaction of this nature. The Court held as under:

E“What is true of contracts between Government and individualsalso holds good in the case of the present contract which wasbetween the Central Government and the State of Punjab. Thedetails of the transaction of transfer had been settled between thetwo Governments and these conditions set out in detail in the letterof 1961 have been fulfilled and the transaction completed. It hasFnot been disputed that the entire amount due to the CentralGovernment has been paid and it would be pointless in such asituation to contend that the transfer, not having been executed inthe form envisaged in Article 299(1) becomes void and inoperativealtogether. As Mr. Justice Bose observed, the provisions of ArticleG299 (1) are meant to safeguard the interests of the Governmentand there can be contracts which though not executed in the formcontemplated in Article 299 (1) are all the same binding on theparties concerned. In our view, therefore, the package deal putan end to the ownership of the Central Government of the

H6(1968) 2 ILR P&H 651

properties comprised in the compensation pool and the StateGovernment thereafter had full authority to dispose them.”

27. In Pala Singh (Deceased) by LRs v. Union of India &Ors.[7], this Court approved the order passed by the Punjab and HaryanaHigh Court in Ram Chander when it was held that since the excessland allotted was the package deal property the same cannot be sold norcan it be allowed to be sold to the appellant by the Managing Officerunder the provisions of the Act as the delegatee of the CentralGovernment. The Court found that the order of the Officer is withoutjurisdiction as the said property was no longer in the compensation poolof the Central Government but it was package property vested in theState of Punjab. The Court held as under:“8. It appears from the letters dated 3-6-1961, 5-3-1962 as wellas 23-3-1963 issued from the office of Chief SettlementCommissioner, Government of India that all surplus lands as wellas excess area in occupation of the allottees stood transferred tothe Punjab Government with effect from 1-4-1961 and the PunjabGovernment paid the price of the lands at the rate of Rs 445 perstandard acre to the Central Government by half yearly instalmentsin 6 instalments within period of three years commencing from1-4-1961. So these lands are package deal properties vested inthe State of Punjab. It has been rightly held in the letters patentappeal confirming the order of the learned Single Judge in thewrit petition that since the excess land allotted to the appellantwas package deal property the same cannot be sold nor can it beallowed to be sold to the petitioner-appellant by the ManagingOfficer under the provisions of Displaced Persons (Compensationand Rehabilitation) Act, 1954. So the order of the Managing Officermade in February 1962 is wholly without jurisdiction inasmuch asthe said property was no longer in the Compensation Pool of theCentral Government but it was package deal property vested inthe State of Punjab. It has also been rightly held that the ChiefSettlement Commissioner is competent under Section 24 of theDisplaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act 44 of1954 to cancel the allotment of land in excess of the area thepetitioner is entitled to get under the provisions of the said Act.This legal position has been settled by decision of the Punjab

ABC

DEFG

and Haryana High Court in the case of Ram Chander v. State ofPunjab [1968 CLJ (P & H) 668, 673] wherein it has been held:

“In our opinion, the package deal has the effect of transferringthe property from the Central Government to the Punjab Stateand the logical result which flows from it is that the SettlementBAuthorities as delegates of the Central Government could not passany orders under the Act.”

xxxx

11. It is therefore clear and evident that the judgment of thePunjab High Court rendered in the case of Ram Chander v. Stateof Punjab [1968 CLJ (P & H) 668, 673] insofar as it relates tothe validity of the package deal, has been upheld by this Court. Sothere is no merit in this contention made on behalf of the appellant.”

28. The argument raised by Mr. Sibal that the Central Governmenthas notified the authorities to give effect to the provisions of the Act,Dtherefore, the Central Government has retained control and administrationof the evacuee property, is misconceived. The land forming part of thecompensation pool was transferred to the State Government and theofficers of the State Government were entrusted with the functions ofManaging Officer or Settlement Commissioner, as the case may be.EThe allotment of all evacuee land is governed by the Act, therefore, theofficers competent to make allotment are the Managing Officers, whereaspower of appeal and revision are to be exercised by the SettlementCommissioner or the Chief Settlement Commissioner. Such notificationsfacilitate the exercise of powers under the Act by the officers of theState Government in respect of land which stood transferred to the StateFGovernment. The CCLA in terms of the scheme of the Act has nopower to make allotment of land as he exercises the appellate or revisionaljurisdiction as delegate of the Central Government. The power ofallotment is vested with the Managing Officer only in terms of Section17 of the Act.

29. The allotment was made by the CCLA as delegatee of theCentral Government. The Settlement Commissioner had no power tomake allotment of land falling in compensation pool either before May23, 1980 or thereafter. Since the land stood transferred to the StateGovernment, the CCLA as delegatee of the Central Government, could

not deal with the land forming part of compensation pool which stoodtransferred to the State Government.

30. On this ground alone, the allotment made in favour of theappellant on February 26, 2003 cannot be sustained in view of the DivisionBench judgment of Punjab and Haryana High Court in Ram Chander,as approved by this Court in Pala Singh. We find that the CentralGovernment or its delegatee could not allot land after the same wastransferred to the State as part of the package deal.

31. However, we are unable to agree with the High Court thattransfer of land to the State Government takes such transferred land outof compensation pool. The land transferred to the State Governmentcontinues to be part of compensation pool but it is required to be disposedof by the Officers of the State who have been conferred the powers ofthe Managing Officer or of the Settlement Commissioner for thesettlement of the displaced persons alone. It is only after the displacedpersons are settled, the State Government may utilize the land for otherpurposes.

32. We do not find any merit in the argument that there is no timelimit for allotment of land to make good the verified claim. Rule 86 ofthe Rules will come into play if the displaced person has not raised anyclaim within the time period prescribed under Section 4 of the Act i.e.June 30, 1955 but once claim has been filed by displaced person, thesuccessor-in-interest steps into his shoes and was required to raise hisgrievance in respect of allotment of lesser area or any other grievancearising out of quasi-judicial order passed by the Regional SettlementCommissioner in the manner prescribed by the Act. Since thepredecessor-in-interest of the appellant has not raised any grievanceduring his life time and for more than 13 years after his death by theappellant, therefore, the appellant cannot be permitted to agitate the issueswhich have attained finality. Rule 86 of the Rules is not perennialsource of allotment by the successor-in-interest but operates in respectof successor-in-interest by displaced person who has not filed claimduring his life time of displaced person before June 30, 1955. Thesuccessor-in-interest is also required to file claim before the date fixedby Section 4 of the Act.

33. The argument that the appellant is entitled to equivalent landas is the verified claim is untenable. The verified claim is verification of

Athe claim of the displaced person in respect of his property in WestPakistan. The entitlement of allotment out of compensation pool iscontained in Rule 51 of the Rules. Rule 51 of the Rules provides for theland which is to be allotted in lieu of area abandoned. In respect of 83acres of area abandoned, the entitlement is 45.8¾ acres as per theAppendix XIV. Therefore, the father of the appellant could at bestBclaim the remaining 4 acres but had to raise claim by seeking hisremedy against the order passed by the Regional SettlementCommissioner on April 29, 1954 or March 24, 1956. Rule 51 of theRules will be applicable if the land is not available and the competentauthority decides to allot land in bits and parts. The order of allotmentCdoes not show that the allotting authority reserved any right for allotmentof the remaining land, therefore, the claim of the appellant stood satisfiedin its entirety when the allotment was made under the Act in the year1954.34. In somewhat similar circumstances, the Division Bench ofDPunjab and Haryana High Court in Chameli Devi & Ors. v. Union ofIndia & Ors.[8] has dismissed the claim on behalf of successor-in-interestafter the death of displaced person on May 10, 1989. The displacedperson has never disputed any claim regarding land allotted to him. It isafter his death, the appellant met the Revenue Minister in 1994, who setthe allotment process in motion. In the aforesaid case, the DivisionEBench of the High Court held as under:

“16. The facts of this case show that application was filed byHarbans Lal Arora on 15.03.1994, which was obviously highlybelated. Moreover, such an application could have been filed onlyby person, who was holder of “verified claim”, whichFaccording to the definition means person, whose claim madeunder the East Punjab Refugees (Registration of Land Claims)Act, 1948, had remained un-satisfied. Had this been the case JetaRam would not have remained quiet during his life time. This initself suggests that the application made by Harbans Lal AroraGlacked bonafide. Further, such an application was to be made tothe Settlement Officer and was to be examined by the SettlementCommissioner, who, after an inquiry made in prescribed mannercould determine the amount of compensation, if at all, payable.The application, if made by an heir of the displaced person, required

H8CWP No. 14772 of 2000 decided on November 14, 2017

additional documents to be filed alongwith it to enable theconcerned official to make determination regarding his status.The facts of this case, however, reveal that an application wasdirectly made to the then Revenue Minister and on his instructions/directions, the Tehsildar (Sales)-cum-Managing Officer passedorders of additional allotment. The exercise of classification ofland abandoned in West Pakistan, valuation thereof and valuationof land allotted in India was done by the said Managing Officer,whereas according to the 1954 Act, such power is vested in theSettlement Commissioner. The various orders of allotment arethus, illegal having been passed by officers who were not vestedwith jurisdiction to do so.

19. Thus, it stands established on record that the claim of JetaRam stood satisfied during his life time. There was no “verifiedclaim” of him left to be satisfied and the entire exercise initiatedby his son through letter dated 15.03.1994 was with fraudulentintentions. Officials/officers passed allotment orders with viewto benefit Harbans Lal Arora, even though, they did not have thejurisdiction to do so under the law. Even the procedure prescribedby law was short-circuited so that instant gratification could beachieved.

21. Thus, it is unequivocally held that Harbans Lal Arora, as heirof Jeta Ram, was not entitled to any additional allotment and hisbelated claim was totally false, fabricated and arose out of anulterior motive.”

35. Another argument was raised that the expression ‘packagedeal’ is not the expression used in the communication dated May 24,1980 though such expression was used in the communication dated March5, 1962 by the Central Government and/or in the communication datedMarch 23, 1963 when communicating with Punjab Government. Wefind that the lack of use of expression ‘package deal’ will not change thenature of transfer which is in terms of Section 16 of the Act with thedate of transfer specified as June 1, 1980 in terms of Rule 34 of theRules. The transfer of land forming part of compensation pool is

Acontemplated by Section 16 of the Act, when it provides that for thecustody, management and disposal of the compensation pool, the CentralGovernment constitute such authority or corporation. Thus, if the CentralGovernment could transfer land forming part of the compensation poolto corporation, then it could very well transfer land to StateGovernment.

36. The Punjab Act is to regulate transfer of land for allotment todisplaced persons after vesting of surplus land with the State Governmentof Punjab. Such Act is only to regulate and provide for procedure forallotment of surplus evacuee land.

C37. In fact, the Act was repealed by the Displaced Persons Claimsand Other Laws Repeal Act, 2005. One of the objects of the RepealAct is as under:

“2. The major works of claims compensation and rehabilitationmore or less had been completed by the year end of 1970.Subsequently, the erstwhile Ministry of Labour and Rehabilitation(Department of Rehabilitation) which was responsible for theaforesaid rehabilitation work also concluded that only limitednumber of acquired evacuee urban and agricultural lands orproperties had remained to be disposed of and the expenditurewhich was being incurred for the purpose was out of proportionto the volume of work and the receipts from their disposal…

3. Subsequent to the transfer of the ownership of the CentralGovernment on the undisposed evacuee properties to the StateGovernments concerned, it was reported by the State Governmentsthat large number of claims under the aforesaid Acts’ are beingcontinued to be filed in the various courts under the aforesaidActs. It has further been brought to the notice of the CentralGovernment that number of persons unconnected with theclaimants posing as their legal heirs are presenting repeateddemands for lands. Examinations have revealed that in most ofsuch cases the claimants under the temptation to grab more lands,have managed to obtain bogus and excess allotments. It thereforehad become difficult for the State Governments to retrieve theGovernment lands and properties worth crores of rupees fromthe hands of unscrupulous persons.”

38. The Government of India clarified on September 22, 2008that the proceedings pending under the Act before the repeal have to bedecided under the relevant laws. It was communicated as under:

“3. The matter has, therefore, been considered in detail by theMinistry of Home Affairs, in consultation with the Ministry ofLaw & Justice and after ascertaining the ground situation fromsome of the State Governments/UTs concerned. Pursuant thereto,and in order to remove ambiguity and doubts which appear tohave been created, it is clarified that the enactment of the displacedpersons claims and other laws repeal Act 2005 would not affectdisposal of the following categories of cases and the StateGovernment/UTs may, therefore, take action as appropriate, tosettle them under the relevant State Laws or the General ClausesAct:

3.1. Unsatisfied verified claims filed under the Displaced Persons(Claims) Act, 1950 in which right has accrued or has been acquiredand which were pending as on 06.09.2005, the date on which theDisplaced Persons (Compensation & Rehabilitation) Act, 1954and other related Acts were repealed.

xxxx

5. As regards revival of the authorities prescribed under therepealed Acts, it is clarified that since the subject stands transferredto the State Governments, action for settlement of pending matters,can be taken by the authorities prescribed under any state lawsthat may have been enacted or in any other manner as consideredappropriate and it may not be necessary to revive the authoritiesprescribed under the repealed acts.”

39. It is, thereafter, another communication was addressed by theGovernment of India on November 17, 2016 subsequent to an orderpassed by this Court in Union of India v. International SindhiPanchayats & Ors.[9] on April 28, 2014 that the cases and proceedingswhich were pending on the date of repeal of the Act will be decided interms of the provisions of the Act. It was communicated as under:

“2. Considering the above judgment passed by the Hon’bleSupreme Court on the issue, this Ministry, in consultation with

9 Civil Appeal No.6079 of 2010

AMinistry of Law & Justice has decided to request all the StateGovernments/UTs to continue to decide the pending cases andproceedings which were pending on the date of the repeal of thesaid Acts, and deal with the residuary works of administration,management and disposal of acquired evacuee properties (formingpart of Compensation Pool) transferred to the State Governments/BUTs, under the un-repealed Displaced Persons (Compensation &Rehabilitation) Act, 1954 and other related Acts as per theprovisions of Section 6 of the General Clauses Act, 1897.”

40. Mr. Sibal has strongly relied upon the order passed by thisCourt in International Sindhi Panchayats. The said order is that theCcases and proceedings pending on the date of repeal shall be decidedunder the provisions of the Act. The said order is not helpful to the issueraised in respect of the right of the Central Government for allotment ofland after the same was transferred to State of Andhra Pradesh on May24, 1980 w.e.f. June 1, 1980.

D41. In view of the above, we do not find any merit in the presentappeal. Consequently, appeal is dismissed.

Ankit Gyan

Appeal dismissed.