JALANDHAR IMPROVEMENT TRUST versus VINOD KUMAR AND ORS.

Citation: [2011] 9 S.C.R. 122 · Decided: 15-07-2011 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
(2011) 9 S.C.R. 122 
JALANDHAR IMPROVEMENT TRUST 
v. 
VINOD KUMAR AND ORS. 
(Civil Appeal No. 5461 of 2011) 
JULY 15, 2011 
[DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA AND ANIL R. DAVE, JJ.] 
Punjab Public Premises Land (Eviction and Rent 
Recovery) Act, 1973- ss. 5 and 7 - Initiation of- Proprietary 
C rights -
Land in question was part of the Development 
Scheme developed by the Punjab Government -
Respondent claimed that they were Displaced persons from 
Pakistan and were in possession of the said land as an 
evacuee property - Order ofCivil Court that respondents not 
D be dispossessed from the property otherwise than in due 
course of law - Appellant initiated proceedings under the 
Public Premises Act for eviction of the respondents - The 
proceedings were stopped when the case file got lost at the 
stage of evidence - Respondents filed writ petition contending 
E that the proceedings under the Public Premises Act was 
without jurisdiction - In terms of the orders of High Court, 
matter was placed before the Settlement Commissioner who 
held that the case could not be decided in view of repeal of 
the Displaced Persons Act - Respondents filed another writ 
F petition for quashing the order of the Settlement 
Commissioner - High Court remanded back the matter to the 
Settlement Commissioner once again to consider the claims 
of the respondents and also stayed their dispossession till the 
matter was decided by the Settlement Commissioner - On 
G appeal, held: Since the Evacuee Property Act has been 
repealed, there is no justification in the order passed by the 
High Court remanding back the matter to the Settlement 
Commissioner to consider the claim of the respondents once 
again inasmuch as the issue as to whether or not respondents · 
H 
122 
... 
JALANDHAR IMPROVEMENT TRUST v. VINOD 
123 
KUMAR 
I 
are authorised or unauthorised occupants of the land in 
Ai 
dispute and as to whether or not the respondents are er:ititled 
to alternative plots or rehabilitation are matters which can be 
adjudicated upon separately in accordance with law but not 
in the manner as suggested by the High Court - Even if 
respondents are entitled to rehabilitation under any law the 
B 
'•. 
same has to be established by due process of law - But they 
cannot claim any land within the acquired area/55.0 Acres of 
Development Scheme but in case an order is passed in their 
favour, they would be rehabilitated in alternative plot(s) -
Therefore, they would have ·to prove their case before the c 
competent authority and not before the Settlement 
Commissioner - However, in order to comply with the 
directions of the Civil Court and also for eviction in accordance 
with law, proceeding initiated under the Public Premises 
Eviction Act should be continued till the same comes to a 
D 
logical end - Evacuee Property Act, 1950 - Displaced 
Persons (Compensation & Rehabilitation) Act, 1954. 
Respondents filed application for grant of proprietary 
rights in respect of land measuring 2-1/2 kanals in the 
55.0 Acres Development Scheme developed by the 
E 
Punjab Government contending that they were displaced 
persons from Pakistan' and were in occupation of the 
said land since the year 1947 by way of evacuee 
property. The application was dismissed by the Naib 
.. 
Tehsildar (S), M.O. on 3-8-1981 on the ground that the said 
F 
area had already been acquired by the appellant-
Improvement Trust Jalandhar and that it was not an 
evacuee property. The respondents then filed appeals 
before the Settlement Commissioner which vide its order 
dated 5-10-1981 remanded the matter to the Tehsildar (S)-
G 
cum-M.O., for decision afresh. 
Earlier, an Award had been passed on 05.01.1977 by 
the Land Acquisition Collector, Jalandhar Improvement 
Trust and in the said Award, it was stated that the State 
H 
124 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(2011] 9 S.C.R. 
A Government (Local Government) vide their notification 
dated the 10th July, 1975, issued under Section 42 of the 
Punjab Town Improvement Act, 1922, had accorded 
sanction to the Development Scheme for an area 
measuring approximately 55.0 acres. The Land 
B Acquisition Collector vide its Award dated 05.01.1977 hald 
that the land occupied by the respondents had already 
been received by the Improvement Trust, Jalandhar in the 
package deal. 
In the meantime the predecessor-in-interest of the 
C respondents Nos. 1 & 2 filed a civil suit seeking for 
injunction· restraining the appellant from dispossessing 
the predecessor-i

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