LexMAJOR GOPAL SINGH AND OTHERS versus CUSTODIAN, EVACUEE PROPERTY, PUNJAB
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
328
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1962]
I90I
_
dissented from in Budhan Mahto v. lssur Singh(') and
Dibaliar Satpathy it does not appear that this fact was brought to the ·
v.
notice of the Orissa High Court. The Legal Remembr-
Hon'ble The
ancer to whom the matter was referred submitted a
Chief justice 6-
h h
d"
Judges of the
note w ic , accor mg to the High Court, was "some-
High Court of thing ambiguous and did not deal with all questions-
Orissa
consequential and ancillary". In spite of that the
appellant, in his endorsement, gave a direction to the
Mudholka. J. Magistrates to igno,·e the decision of the High Court
even though that was binding on them. We have not
the least doubt that suoh a direction is a flagrant
interference with the administration of justice by
courts and a clear contempt of court. Upon this view
we dismiss the appeal.
March r5.
Appeal dismissed.
MAJOR GOP AL SINGH AND OTHERS
v.
CUSTODIAN, EVACUE.E PROPERTY, PUNJAB
(K. SUBBA RAO, RAGHUBAR DAYAL and
J. R. MUDJIOLKAR, JJ.)
Evacuee Property-Quasi-permanent allotment-Cancellation of
-Custodian General, powers of-Enactment vesting evacuee pro-
perty in Central Government-If Custodian General still has power
to cancel allotment-Administration of Evacuee Property Act, r950
(JI of r950), ss. IO, 27 -Displaced Persons (Compensation and Re-
habilitation) Act, I954 (44 of r954), ss. I2, 19.
The appellants who are displaced persons from West Pakis- '
tan, were granted quasi-permanent allotment of some lands in . ·
village Raikot in 1949· On October 31, 1952, the Assistant
Custodian cancelled the allotment of 14 allottees in village
Karodian, and also cancelled the allotment of the appellants in
Raikot but allotted lands to them in village Karodian, and
allotted the lands of Raikot to other persons. The 14 allottees
of village Karodian as well as the appellants applied for review
of the orders of cancellation of itheir allotment. The application
of the 14 allottees was dismissed. They preferred a revision to
the Custodian General who cancelled the appellant's allotment
(1) (r907) I.L.R. 34 Cal. 926.
•
..
-~-
~
.\
•. '
I S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS
329
in Karodian and restored the a'llotment of the 14 allottees on
1961
December 17, 1954_,
Thereupon, on January 6, 1955, the appel-
lants moved the Custodian General for calling up their review
Major Gopul
appiication and for revising the or.der of October 3r, 1952, can- Singh &- Olh1rs
celling their allotmenUn Raikot. The Custodian General refused
v.
to revise the order ()n the ground that _his power to revise had
Custodian,
been-taken away by the Displaced Persons (Compensation and
Evacim
Rehabilitation) Act,· 1954· The appellants contended that the Properly, PNnjat
Custodian General had the power to revise the order.
Held, that after the enactment of the_ Displaced-Persons
(Compensation and _Rehabilitation) Act, 1954, the Custodian
General ceased to have the power to cancel allotments. By the
issuing of a notifioation under, s. 12( r) of this Act, the right,
title or interest of the evacuee-in the property specified fo the
notification was extinguished and the property vested absolutely
in the Central Government. The right of the Custodian to
manage the property uncler the Administration of Evacuee Pro-
perty Act, 1950, came to an end and the man.agement vested in
a new set of officers.
Fven .though no. managing officer was
appointed or a managii<g corpQration_ constitute!l under the
new Act to manage the preperty no one__else .could exercise the
power of cancellation ofallotm.eJ\1.
Ba/, Mukund v. The State of Punjab, I.L.R. 1957 Puilj. 712;
approved.
CIVIL APPELLATE JuRISDIOTIOl!f:
Civil Appeal No.
101 of 1959.
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and
order dated November 8, 1957, of the Deputy Custo-
dian General, Evacuee Property, Ne.v Delhi, in R-evi-
sion Petition No. 17-R/55 of 1955.
Achhru Ram and K. L. Mehta for the appetfants.
B. K .. Khanna and T. M. Sen, for the respondent
No. I.
N. S. Bindra and A. G. Ratnaparkhi, -for the res-
pondents Nos. 2-4.
1961. March 15. The Judgment of the Court was
delivered by
M:-CJ:DHOLKAR, J.-The appellants who are admittedly M,.4AoU .. /.
displaced persons from West Pakistan were granted
quasi-vermanent allotment of 24 standard acres and
15! units in the village of Raikot in Ludhiana District
in 1949. Their father Sardar Naud.Singh who was
42
330
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.