LexCHAND KUMAR KAPUR versus CHIEF SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER PUNJAB & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
. ..,., •• • ' _, ~ CHAND KUMAR KAPUR v: CHIEF SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER PUNJAB & 0RS .. December 12, 1983" ' [D.A. OESAi, R.B. MISRA ANJ;I RANGANATH•MISRA, JJ.] Displaced Persons (Cbmpensatiofz & Rehabilftation) Act,.195.4. ..... East Punjab A.dministrlztion of.E•'acuee property Act; 1947. Displacedpe"rson-Allotted land in semi~urban area~Po/icy 'decision· taken 'f ~O (n1pose cUt in allotment-Managing officer whether competent to canCel~a/lotment. Evacuee Properly (Gentrafi.Rules 1950, Rule 14(6) .. . • Action taken prior jo promulga.tion of rule-Whet he; v.alid. . .. . ·.'. Interpretation of ShJlu!Js-DiSp/aced persons-Payment ~ ion-Undue enricli111eht-Whether ·peftnissible. . .. of compt:.nsat~ . •.· Tl).e ap;>ellaD.t, an evacuee from WeSt .J:akistan wa,s. allotted about six sta:tdard aC'res of land as disP:Iaced person under the .quasi-verman~t scheme· in a semi-urban area. In 1952, the Director· of Rehabilitation submitted a prop~ _sat to ~he Fina·1ci'1I C~mmissioner, Ketief and R.ehabilitation-cum-CustOcH,g.n that prenlium .cut of 5 villages, be enhanced from 18.3/4% to 50% as similarly. ·situated villages carried a cut_· of 50%. ·The propoSal also suggested-, that· in . . .' . . ·tw0 other neighbouring villages where no· prCmrum cut ·had been applied earlier, a shnilar cut.of 50% should be applied. This cut was imPosed ori. the footing that these lands abutted the. Municipal area and had semi-urban C!laracter. Thi.s p.ropJsal wa:-s accepted by ~the CoJJllliissioner as also by the GovernOr be.f9re 22nd July; 1952 when rulel4(6) ?f ihe· Evacuee Property ,,,_., .. (Central) Rules, 1952 _was amended, which provided that in respect of quasi- ·+ ' perffianent ·allottees c~rtcellat-ion. w:is pCrm·itted on-Jy·on grounds set oU.t in· ' rule 14(6) A feW allot tees .ch<i!l~ngej the _order implementing the. pot icy decision of cut- of 50% b4t t~e writ petition was how~ver dismissed and.the Order Was tonfirmed by this Court. ... When steps. were taken to. enforce the cut, a·wriLpetition was inoved by the a,,~lla';lt._A Sinite Judge of the Hi&:ti Court dismiss~d the petition, &nd · t~i~ order was Cqnfir.qied by the Di~isiori B6nch. ,In the aPpeal to this Corirt on the· question, as to-whether the :Managing . Officer _Operating under tlle Displaced Persons (Compensation & Rehabilita"· nop) . .\ct, 1954 could cancel the_ allotment made in_favour of .a d'ispJacca P,er!,~ 1 _µpd~r. th.e~East· Pur1J<i_~- .A.dministr.ation .of . .E~ac.ucp· .~ipper.ty- Act, :1:947, aha: ~he scheffies.friimed,th.ereuiide'r. . '. ' B. c D E G .A H· c D ·.E F _G H • • 2 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1984] 2 S.C.R. Dismissing the Appeal, • . HELD: 1. At the time when the proceedings "".ere initiated and the final order dated the 3rd February, .19~2 was passed, the relevant provisions of sub~ clause (6) of rule 14 were not yet on the statute bo9k and the action taken prior to their }lromulgation was perfectly valid and in .accordance with law. [4 DJ • 2. There is no justification to allQw the benefit claimed by the. appellant. The fesp:>itdent will however noi be precluded from· entertaining the offer by the appellant, ir made, to pay the ext;a pre;i'um and/or any further .demand \tith a view to o_btaining a lawful settlement of the entire property without cut on the basis of the initial allotment. [5 G-HJ 3. People who were uprooted from Pakistan and became displaced persons were to be corllpenstated on the· footing that they had left behind lands in Pakistan and lands of people who had left India for Pakist::i.n had become evacuee propei;y and the compensation to the displaced persons could be by ~ettlement Of such lands. In s·uch cases no one. can look for undue e'nrichment. · Qnce it is held as a fact ·that the properties are semi-urban and when this had not been kept in view When original allotment had been-n1ade~ it should always f . ., be pJssible to make an adjustment. Such an adjustment is just and fair. [5 C-DJ • _. In the instant case, there were 117 allottees in ·villages which were declared semi-urban and. 97 of these allot tees paid the extra"premium anO wt:re allowed to acquire the entire land given to them. Twenty allottees including he appellant took steps to challif?,ge the decis~n regarding levy of premiu·m as also cut'in the al1otments. There is no justificatioii as to why any differential-.treament should be shown to these twenty allotte
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.