LexCHIEF SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER, REHABILITATION DEPARTMENT, PUNJAB & ORS ETC. versus OM PARKASH & ORS. ETC.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
·~-.
A
CHIEF SETI'LEMENT COMMISSIONER, REHABILITADON
DEPARTMENT, PUNJAB & ORS, ETC.
v.
OM PARKASH & ORS. ETC.
B
April 5, 1968
[J. C. SHAH AND V. RAMASWAMI, JJ.J
The East Punjab Evacuees (Administration of Property) Act, 1947-
Definition of 'displaced perwn' in para 2(e) of Notification ~ssued under
Rules made pursuant to s. 22(2){f) and (ft); The East Pun1ab Refugets
c
(Registration of Land Claims) Act 12 of 1948, s. 2(d)-Definition of
'refugees'; Person with prop~rty in Pakistan coming to Jnd~a .Prior
to
partition-Dying in June 1941-Shown as owner of properties in revenue
records received from West Punjab-If displaced person-Whether allot-
ment of land in India must be made in his name or in the name of /lis
heirs.
.~.:;;!
N owned agricultural lands in Bahawalpur State now forming part of
~
D
Pakistan and also owned some property in Pnnjab in India. He died in
June 1947 while on a visit to India in the normal course of business,
leaving behind three sons, the respondents in the appeal. On the parti-
tion of India, the land in Pakistan originally owned by N and after his
death by his sons, had to be abandoned. After migrating to India, the
three respondents filed separate claims
as displaced persons and were
allotted an area of land in Punjab.
Therea'fter a complaint was filed
before the Managing 'Officer that these respondents had received double
E
allotments. The Managing Officer, held this allegation was not substan-
tiated but came to the conclusion that N, although he had died before the
partition, must be treated as a displaced land:.holder for the purpose (j(
allotment of land as his name continued to be shown in the J amabandi
as the owner of the abandoned land in Pakistan.
In consequence of this
finding a large portion of the land allotted to the three rcspc>ndents was
cancelled by an order of the Managing Officer dated September
F
18, 1961. Appeals made by the respondents to the A>si<tant Settlement
Commissioner as well as revision petitiom betfore the Chief Settlement
Commissioner Punjab, were dismissed.
In dismissing the revision peti-
lions, the Chief Settlement Commissioner relied on para. 17 of ''Tarlok
Singh's Land Resettlement Manual"-1952 edition-Page 180, to
the
effect that "Even where a displaced land-holder in who<e name the land
stands in the records received from West Punjab has died, the allotment
is made in the name of the deceased". He therefore upheld the view
G
that the land could only be allotted in the name of N. The respondents
then filed a writ petition against the orders of the Chief Settlement Com-
missioner which was allowed.
On appeal to this Court,
HELD : Dismissing the appeal,
H
. The definition of a. "displaced person" in para 2(e) of the Notifica·
!!on of July 8. 1949, JSsued by the Custodian in accordance with provi-
sions of the East Pnnjab Evacuees (Administration of Property)
Act
1947, and the Rules made thereunder, or of a "Refugee" in Section 2(d)
of the East Punjab Refugees (Registration of Land Claims) Act 12 di
656
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1968) 3 S.C.R.
1948, show that these expressions have been used in the relevant enact-
ments \vith refereiice to a person who has migrated to India as a result of
disturbances O'f fear of disturbances or the partition of the country. There-
fore if a person had died before the disturbances took place or he had
never migrated to India as a result of the disturbances and he died before
such migration, he could not come within the meaning of the expression
"displaced person" or the word '"refugee"' under the
relevant statutory
enactments. N died in June, 1947, long before the partition of the coun-
try and he did not abandon or was not made to abandon his land in
Bahawalpur on account of the civil disturbances or the fear df such dis-
turbances or the partition of the country. [660 A-DJ
There WRS no force in the contention that even though N never be-
came a refugee or a displaced land-holder, the allotment had to be made
in his name because he was shown in the revenue records received from
West Punjab as the owner of the land and there had been no mutation
of the names of the respondents
in the revenue records. The rule in
pa'ra 17 o'f "Tarlok Singh's Manual" consistently with the statutory enact-
ments, \vould be applicable only to such persons who were land-holders
at the time of their becoming displaced persons or refugees and who died
afterwards before alloExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.