LexBIHARI LAL BATRA versus THE CHIEF SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER & ORS
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
1964 Jlareh 12 192 SUPRRME COURT REPORTS [l!Jc4 I BIHARI LAL BATRA v. THE CHIEF .SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER '& ORS [P. B. GAJENDRAGADKAR,, c. J., K. N. WANCHOO, J.C., SHAH, N. RAJAGOPALA AYYANGAR ANDS. M. SIKRI, JJ.J Evacuee property-Land allotted to a refugee in urban area-Allotment is invalid under the rules-Displaced Persons Compensatwn and Rehabilitation Rules, 1955, Rule 2(h). The father of the appellant owned considerable agricul- tural property in Pakistan and he with the members of his family moved over to India on partition. The appellant's father had some unsatisfied claim for allotment and on December 29, 1955 he was··anotted some plots in Urban area within a certain rrunicipality. The appellant's father died in 1952 and the allot- ment made was actually to the appellant in lieu of the claim of his father. On the allotment being made, a sanad was issued to the appellant by the Managing Officer. When the appellant tried to take possession of these lands, disputes were raised by respondents Nos. 4 and 5. These respondents moved the Assistant Settlement Commissioner for cancellation of the allotment on the ground that these disputed plots were within an "urban area" within the meaning of r. 2(h) of the Displaced Persons Compensation and Rehabilitation Rules, 1955 and, therefore, the allotment to the appellant was contrary to law. The Assistant Settiement Commissioner accepted the contention of the res- pondents and allowed the appeal and cancelled the allotment. The appellant then applied to the Chief Settlement Com- missioner in revision. He rejected the petition. Then the ap- pellant moved a petition under Arts. 226 and 227 of the Cons- titution before the High Court. This petition was also dismissed. The High Court granted certificate of fitness under Art. 133 of the Constitution and hence the appeal. Held: (i) Where an order m~king an allotment was set aside by the Assisfant Commissioner or Settlement Commis- sioner the title which was obtained on the basis of the continu- ance of that sanad or order also fell with it. Shri Mithoo Shahani v. Union nf India, [1964] 7 S.C.R. 103, relied on. (ii) The contention of the appellant that r. 2(h) of the Displaced Persons Compensation and Rehabilitation Rules. 1955, was unconstit~_t_ional as contravening Art. 14 of the c·ons- titution must fail.- This contention is based on the basis of the proviso to Rule 2(h). Rule 2(h} was framed under s. 40 of the Act. This rule along with other rules came into fo.rce on May 21, 1955. The allotment was made to the appellant on Decem- ber 29, 1955 and the Sanad was issued two days later. In other words the allotment· in favour of the appellant was after the rule came into force and was not one "already made" as stated in the proviso to r. 2(h). Therefore, if on the date of the al- lotment the land was in an urban area, the allotment would b~ governed by the main para of the definition and the proviso· had no application. ' 7 S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 193 The discrimination is said to consist in the rule having 1961 drawn a dividing line at the date when it came into force, for Bihari Lal Balra determining whether the allotment was valid or not. Such a v. contention is patently self-contradictory. Every law must have The Chief Settlem.nl a beginning or time from which it operates, and no rule which Commissioner end seeks to change the law can be held invalid for the mere reason Olhera that it effects an alternation in the law .. It is sometimes pos- sible to plead injustice in a rule which is made to operate with retrospective effect, but to say that a rule which operates pros- pectively is invalid because thereby a difference is made bet- ween the past and the future, is one which cannot be accept- ed. CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION; Civil ,Appeal No. 543 of 1962! Appeal from the judgement and order dated Novem- ber 26, 1959 of the Punjab High Court in Civil Writ No. 678/ 1957. . Bishan Narain and N. N. Keswani, for the appellant. 8. K. Khanna and B. R. G. K. Achar, for respondent Nos. 1 to 3. D. N. Mukherjee, for respondent No. 4. R. V. S. Mani and T. R. V. Sastri, for respondent No. 5. March 12, 1964. The Judgment of the Court was deliver- ed by- · AYYANGAR, J.-This is an appeal on a certificate of fit- Ayyangar, J. ness granted under Art. 133 by the High Court of Punjab against the order of that Court dismissing the appellant's peti- tion to it under A
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.