DUNICHAND HAKIM AND OTHERS versus DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (DEPUTY CUSTODIAN EVACUEE PROPERTY)

Citation: [1954] 1 S.C.R. 578 · Decided: 18-12-1953 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M. PATANJALI SASTRI · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

578 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1954] 
1953 
We dismiss both the applications. The pet1t10ner 
Baburao 
must pay one set of costs of the application under 
Shantaram More 
article 32. 
v. 
The Bombay 
Housing Board 
and Another. 
1953 
Dec. 18 
Petitions dismissed. 
Agent for the petitioner : Rajinder Narain. 
Agent for the respondents : G. H. Rajadhyaksha. 
DUNICHAND HAKIM AND OTHERS 
v. 
DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (DEPUTY 
CUSTODIAN EVACUEE PROPERTY) 
KARNAL, STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS. 
[PATANJALI SASTRI c. J., s. R. DAS, 
VIVIAN BosE, GHuLAM HASAN and 
JAGANNADHADAS JJ.J 
Administration of Evacuee Property Act (Act XXXl of 1905), 
ss. 
2, 
12, 
56(2)-Evacuee 
property-Allotment-Cancellation 
of-Jurisdiction of Deputy Custodian-Notice for cancellation, whe-
tlier essential-Orders of cancellation of allotment-Validity of. 
Held, that the 
Deputy 
Custodian 
of Evacuee Property has 
jurisdiction to 
cancel the allotment 
of land 
both under the East 
Punjab Evacuees' 
(Administration of Property) 
Act, XIV of 1947 
as well as under 
the 
Administration 
of 
Evacuee 
Property (Act 
XXX! of 1950), ss. 2(a) 12(1) and 56(2), the latter Act re-
placing the former Act. 
That no notice 
was provided for cancellation 
of an allotment 
under the rules framed under section 56. 
That 
the 
petitioners-allottees 
in the present case were given 
notice and had 
full 
opportunity to put forward 
their case before 
their allotments were cancelled. 
ORIGINAL 
JURISDICTION: 
PETITION No. 324 of 1953 
under article 32 of the Constitution. 
, 
N. S. Bindra, ( Gurucharan Singh Bakshi, with him) 
for the petitioners. 
Porus A. Mehta for respondent No. 1. 
Amar Nath Arora for respondents Nos. 2 to 14. 
1953. December 18. The Judgment of the Court 
was delivered by 
GJ-IULAM HASAN J.-This 
petition by twenty per-
sons under article 32 of the Constitution prays for the 
issue of a writ of certiorari, mandamus and prohibition 
S.C.R. 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
579 
or other sJitable order or directions quashing the 
orders dated the 1st July, 1952, and the 14th October, 
1953, 
passed! by the 
Deputy 
Commissioner 
(Deputy 
Custodian Evacuee Property) Kamal, in the State of 
East Punjab, i hereinafter referred to 
as the first 
res-
pondent, whereby the petitioners are alleged to have 
been deprived of their fundamental right of property 
and are unable to hold the same within the meaning 
of article 19 ( 1) ( f) of the Constitution. 
The petitioners are displaced persons from Pakistan 
who migrated to India after the partition of 1947. 
They 
owned 
certain 
agricultural 
land 
in 
Tehsil 
Chunian, District Lahore, which, according to them, 
was mostly canal irrigated land of the first grade, 
yielding on an average 16 to 20 maunds of wheat per 
acre. It appears that upon partition the East Punjab 
Government was confronted with the serious problem 
of settling agricultural lands abandoned by Muslim 
evacuees from the areas, now called East Punjab and 
Pepsu. Accordingly they decided on the 15th Septem-
ber, 1947, to allot evacuee lands for the current Kharif 
and the Rabi of 1947-48. 
This decision 
was obviously 
taken with a view to prevent famine and fall in agri-
cultural production in the area, as also to provide 
means of livelihood for the agricultural refugees. In 
pursuance of this policy the petitioners were settled on 
land in village Dhakala-admittedly 
a_ 
first grade 
village,-Tehsil Thanesar, District Kamal, in the State 
of East Punjab. Their claims were verified under the 
provisions of . the East Punjab Refugees ( Registration 
of Land Claims) Act XII of 1948. They were allotted 
specific areas of land under the statement . of condi-
tions, contained in Notifications Nos. 4891/S and 4892/S, 
dated the 8th July, 1949, on quasi-permanent basis in 
lieu of the lands left by them in Pakistan. Subse-
quently 
the petitioner's lands left in Pakistan are 
alleged to have been down-graded with the result that 
the lands allotted to them were re-allotted on the 25th 
April, 1951, to Ishar Singh and others who appear as 
respondents 
to oppose 
the present petition. In July, 
1951, the petitioners moved the East Punjab High 
Court under article 
226 
for a writ restraining their 
Dunichand' 
Hakim 
and Others 
V1 
Deputy 
Commifsioner · 
(Deputy 
Custodian 
Evacuee 
Property) 
Karna!, Stat6" 
of Punjab and 
Others. 
Ghulam Hasan J~-
1953 
Dunichand 
Hakim 
and Others 
'v. 
Dtputy 
:Cr;mmissioner 
(Deputy 
C:ustodian 
Evacuee 
Prop,,ty) 
Karnal

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.