LexBASANT RAM versus UNION OF INDIA
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
2 s.c.R. SUPREME COURT .REPORTS
733
Taylor's Medical Jurisprudence (1956 Edn.) Voi. 1,
at page 122, some cases ar~ given showing that
hairs were identified as belonging to particular
persons.
Thus, we have besi<les the evidence of the
approver three important facts which connect the
appellant with the commission of the offence.
His pointing out the dead body, his pointing out
the silver buttons of the deceased which were stained
with huma.n blood and the presence of his hairs on
a pania (scarf) on whicli there were the hairs of
the deceased .also. In our opinion this would be
sufficient evidence in thA circumstances of the
present case
to connect· the avpellant with the
commission of the offence.
We, therefore, dismiss the appeal.
Appeal disn. iss(d.
---
BASANTRAM
.,,
UNION OF INDIA
(P. B. GAJENDRAGADKAR andK. N. WANC1HOO, JJ.)
Evacuee Property--Inclu<ion in compensation. poolr-Effect
-Power of Central Government-AdminiBtration of Evac"ee
Property (Central) R"lea, r. 14 (6)-AdminiBtration of li'vacue<
Property .1ct, 1950-Tlte displ~ced persons (Comp,nBation and
Rekahilitation) ·4.ct, (XUV qf 1954), ss. 12, 14, 16 and 19.
The appellants migrated to India in 1947 from West
Pakistan. To begin with, they were given temporary allot-
ment of land in two villages.
In 1949, land was allotted to
them on qua~i-pern1anent basis, and they have remained in
possession of the same eversince.
Originally, land was classi ..
fied into two kinds : urban and agricultural land. Later on;
a third classification was introduced, known as sub-urban
land.
fhe two villages in which land was allotted to the
appellants were not included in. the notification with respect
to sub-urban land.
In February, 1952,
the Director of
Rehabilitation passed an order declaring those villages as
L9af --
K11nb; liarsan
Jadav
v.
State ofGujaud
-
Kapur J.
1"62
January21.
196f
I
Ba.rant R.o.m '
v.
Union of India
IV rmchGO .T •
'.734 SUPREME COURT REPORTS .[1962] SUPP.
sub-urban. The result of the order was that the allotment
made to the appellants was to be reduced.
The appellants
went'in revision to the Custodian General, and their revision
peti1ions were di!lmissed on the ground that in view of Rule
14(6)(iii)(d) of the Rules it was open to the Central Govern-
Il]ent by a special order to direct cancellation or variation of
the. aJ.lotmeht made in favo_ur of the appellants, and the
Central Government had On the rrpresen'tation of the Punjab
Governm("n t
agreed
to declare
the
two villages
in
question as sub'urban by its or_der. dated October 11, 1955.
The appe!lapts filed a writ petition in the High Court but
that W?.~ di~missed summarily.
They have come in appeal
to this ~ourt by special 'eave.
Held, that when the notification of March 24, 1955, was
rr ade under s. 12 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and
Rehbi!itation) Act, 1954, the evacuee property in those
villagf's Ceasrd to be evacuee property and became a part of
the compensation pool. That property could only be dealt with
under the Act flf 1954.
Tf any variation or cancella_tion of
::iliotment Vias to he madr. 'that C<1uld be dbne only under the,
provi•i.ons of s. 19 ·of Act of 1954. There was no power left
in the Central Government to act under Rule 14(6)(iii)(d)
of the R11Jes framed under the Administration of Evacuee
Property Ar.t, 1950 with respect to that land after the noti-
ficaTion of March 24, 1955.
Ba./mukand v. Th• "State of Pun,iali, I.L.R. 1957 Punjab
712 and Ma_i<lr Gnpal s;nflh v. Custodian of Eracuee Property,
A.I.R. 1961 S.C. 1320, foJlowed.
Crvrr, APPELLATE JuRISDTC'TION : Civil Appeal
· No.'76G of 1957.
AppMI by special leave from the judgm~nt
11nd o'rdcr dR.ted Jarynary 31, 1956, of the Pun1ab
Hi<>b 'Court in Civil Writ Petition No. 30 of 1956.
,..
.
R. 8. Nnru.la, for tho appellants.
B. J(. Khanna and I'. D. 11! enon, for the res·
pondents .
.'::. 1,. Prmdhi, for the intcrvenNs.
l962. .J 11nuarv 24.
Tho .Tudgrnf\nt of the
Conrt was dn\jvC'rod hy
\VAis<'·HOO, J.-This is !tn app<'al by special
knve against fhe nrdnr <'f .1]1P P11nj11h High Conrt
2 S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
735
summarily rejecting a petition filed by the appel-
lants under Art. 226 of the Constitution. The
bfr:f facts neceEsary for present purposes are
these, The appellants migrated in
1947 from
what is now West Pakistan and settled in two
villages, viz., Sheikhapintl anr'I Kot.la. They were
giveExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.