JOGINDER SINGH AND OTHERS versus THE DEPUTY CUSTODIAN GENERAL OF EVACUEE PROPERTY

Citation: [1962] 2 S.C.R. 738 · Decided: 04-05-1961 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. SUBBA RAO, RAGHUBAR DAYAL, J.R. MUDHOLKAR · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

1961 
738 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(1962 
JOGINDER SINGH AND OTHERS 
v. 
THE DEPUTY CUSTODIAN GENERAL OF 
EVACUEE PROPERTY 
(1\. SUBBA RAO, RAGHUBAR DAYAL AND J. R. 
MuDHOLKAR, JJ.) 
Rvacuee 
Property-Quasi-permanent al.lotment of rural 
property-Cancdla.tion of-Custodian General-Power to cancel 
allotment after July 22,1952-Ad-ainistration of Evacuee Proper• 
ty Act, 1.950 (31 of 1950) ss. 26 and 
27-Administration of 
Evacuee Prop rty Rules, r. 14 ( 6). 
Respondents Nos. 4 to 9 who were displaced persons from 
Paki~.tan, 'vere allotted certain 
rural 
lands 
in 
village 
Karodian on a quasi.permanent basis. 
On information being 
received 
from 
Pakistan that they 
were 
entitled 
to 
urban allotment their allotment in village 
Karodian 
was 
cancelled and they were allotted urban land. The land thus 
vacat~d in village Karodian was allotted to the appellants. On 
July 22, 1952, r. 14(6) of the Administration of Evacuee 
Property Rules was amended and the power of the custodian 
to cancel quasi-permanent allotments of rural evacuee property 
\\'as taken away except in certain enumerated c.:ircumstances. 
Thereafter respondents Nos. 4 to 9 applied to the Custodian for 
shifLing back their allotment to village Karodian on the ground 
that they were really entitled to allotment of rural property. 
The Custodian dismissed the application holding that r. 14(6) 
did not pennit the cancellation of the allotment of the appellants. 
Respondents Nos. 4 to 9 filed a revision application before the 
Custodian General who allowed the application and cancelled 
the allotment of the appel!ants. The appellants contended 
that the Custodian General had no power to cancel their 
allotment. The respondents replied that the wide powers of 
the Custodian General under s.27 of Administration of Evacuee 
Property Act 1950, were not affected by the restrictions i~pos 
... 
ed by the amended r. 14 (6) on the power of the Custodian to 
cancel allotrnents. 
Il eld, that the Custodian General had no power to cancel 
an allotment of rural property made on a quasi·permanent bai;is 
in a revi<;ion application against an order of the Custodian 
made after July 22, 1952. The power of the Custodian under 
s. JO of the Act to cancel allotments was subject to the rules. 
The amended r. 14(6) restricted the power of the Custodian to 
cancel such an allotment to the circumstances mentioned there-
in and the present case did not fall within any of those excep-
2 s.c.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
739 
tions. Amended r. 14(6) could not be resorted to for cancella-
tion of allotments made before July, 22, 1952. 
The power of 
the Custodian General under s. 27 of the Act was to see whe-
ther the order passed by the Custodian was legal and proper ; 
he had no power to do something which the Custodian could 
not have done or which he was prohibited from doing. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: 
Civil Appeal 
No. 457/58. 
Appeal from the Judgment and order dated 
September 12, 1956, of the Punjab High Court in 
Letters Patent Appeal No. 38 of 1955. 
N. 0. Ohatwrjee and Naunit Lal, for the 
appellants. 
Nanak Chand, for the respondents Nos. 4 to 9. 
1961. May 4. The Judgment of the Court was 
delivered by 
1961 
Joginder Singh 
v. 
The Deputy 
Ou8tod·ian 
General ~f 
Evacuee 
Property 
MuDHOLKAR, J.-In this ~.ppeal under Art. 133 
Mudholkal' J. 
(1) (c) of the Constitution the question which 
arises for consideration is whether after July 22, 
1952 the Custodian of Evacuee Property in the 
State of Punjab or the Custodian General hearing 
an appeal from an order made by the Custodian 
after July 22, 1952 has the power to cancel an 
allotment of rural evacuee property on a quasi-
permanent basis except upon the grounds set out 
in r. 14 (6) 
of the Administration of Evacuee 
Property Rules, 1950 as amended by notifica-
tion No. S. R. 0. 1290 dated July 22, 1952 . 
. The circumstances under which this question 
arises may now be briefly stated. The appellants 
and their father Nand Singh were displaced persons 
from West Pakistan and got allotment of some land 
in the village Raikot, _District Ludhiana. 
on 
a 
temporary 
basis. 
Later, 
each 
of 
the 
appellants 1 to 3 was allotted 8-1/3 standard 
acres 
of land 
on 
a 
quasi-permanent basis 
while Nand Singh, their father who was entitled to 
41 standard acres and 7 units and to whom land 
to that extent had been temporarily allotted in the 
1961 
J ogi nder Singh 
v. 
1'lte l!eputy 
Cu.<todian 
Gemral of 
Evacuee 
Pro

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