LACHHMAN DASS & OTHERS versus MUNICIPAL COMMITIEE, JALALABAD & OTHERS

Citation: [1969] 3 S.C.R. 645 · Decided: 12-02-1968 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M. HIDAYATULLAH · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

845 
LACRBMAN DASS & OTHERS 
v. 
MUNICIPAL COMMITIEE, .JALALABAD & OTHERS 
February 12, 1968 
B 
(:M, JID>AYATULLAH, C.J., S. M. SUCiu, R. S. BACHAWAT, 
G. K, MITTER AND K. S. HEGDE, JJ,] 
Dlsplllad P•rsons (Compensation ond Rehabilitation) Act, 1954, S. 
20 B-lf violative of Art. 31(2) of th• Constitlltion. 
In 1949 certain property was treated as evacuee property and the 
(! 
District Rent and Managing Officer, Jalalabad, began to recover rent in 
~ 
of it. The respondent Municipal Committee claimed the property 
u its own and liled a suit for a: declaration to that effect. 
By order of 
the trial court the matte'r was referred to the OBtodian General who, in 
"eurcile of bis powers under section 27 of the Administration of Evacuee 
· Property Act t9SO, held that the property un<ler dispute had wronliY 
been taken over u evacuee Pr:o!'"rty and drdered it to be reloued in 
· favour of the respondent Mwiicipal Committee. . After the Committee 
D 
applied for restaration of poeseSSIOO of the property, the District Rent 
and. Manallina Ofticer sent a memo to the respondent committee 1tating 
that the propel~ under dispute had already been transferred to the occu-
1'8"ts and that its assessed price was Rs. 6,542. 
He further stated that 
'it· was not eqedient or practicable to restore the property to the respo~ 
dent committee and it had, therefore, been declded to transfer to it any 
other immovable property in the compensation pool of the equivalent 
amount in lieu thereof under section 20B 
Of 
the Displaced 
Persons 
:I 
(Compensation and Rehabilitation Act) 1954. 
By a writ petition, the 
respoadent ehallenged the vires of section 20-B of 1954 Act as well as 
the validity of the Memo· from the District Rent and Managing Oftioer, 
Jalalabad. The High Court, following its early decision in Kirpol Singh 
v. C•ntral Government; I.L.R. [1967) 2 P. & H., 514, held that section 
2().B was unconstitutional being ultra vires Articles 14 and 19(l)(f) of 
the Constitution. It held, however, that the section did not violate Art. 
·I!' 
31(2) of the Constitution. 
G 
B 
On appeal to this Court, 
HELD: Section 20-B of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and 
Rehabilitation) 
Act 1954 was violative of both provisions of Art. 31(2). 
Although to provide for rehabilitation Of displaced persons was a public 
purpose, it did not serve any public purpose to provide in Section 20-B 
that if a displaced person wa& in occupation of some body's p'roperty he 
could not be given other property because it would not be expedient or 
P!"'¢cable to do so. A public purpose may be served if it had been pro-
vided that a displaced person may not be ousted because his businesa 
would be ruined or that hi> would be completely thrown on the street, 
but to provide in the section that if the Central Government does 
not 
tbi»:k it expedient or ~cticable for ~ts own c~nvenience or f~r the cdn-
-
of a lessee or ltccnsee who " not a dlSplaced person 1t may not 
reatore. Property servea no public ,purchase. Under the section the Central 
Oovemment •. was entitled not to restore property to serve a purpoee other . 
than a public ~. 
. 
and consequently the section was ultra viru Art. 
31(2). [650 HJ. 
646 
SUPREME COURT. REPORTS 
(1969) 3 s.c.R. 
The section .was also violative of Art. 31(2) as it did not lb: any 
compensation or lay down any principle for compensation. 
Amar Singh v. Custodian, Evacuee Property, Punjab, [1957] S.C.R. 
801, referred to. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JuR1so1cnoN : Civil Appeals Nos. 1~07 
and 1569 of 1968. 
Appeals from the order dated May 3, 1967 of the Punjab and 
Haryana High Court in Letters Patent Appeal No. 37 of 1967. 
S. K. Mehta, K. L. Mehta, for the appellants (in C.A. No. 
1407 of 1968) and respondents Nos. 2 to 7 (in C.A. No. 1569 of 
1968). 
Bishan Narain, A. Sreedharan Nambiar and S. P. Nayar, for 
the appellal!lts (in: C.A. No. 1569 of 1968) and respondents Nos. 
2, 4 and 5 (in C.A. No. 1407 of 1968). 
U. P. Singh, for respondent No. 1 (in C.A. No. 
1407 of 
1968). 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
Sikri, J, The Municipal Committee, Jalalabad, respondent be· 
fore us in these appeals filed an application under Arts. 226 ajlld 
227 of the Constitution praying that s. 20 B of the Displaced 
Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954-herein· 
after referred to as the Compensation Act-be declared ultra vires 
the Constitution and that the memorandum dated March 14, 1963, 
communicated by the District Rent 

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