PALA SINGH (DECEASED) BY LRS. versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

Citation: [1987] 3 S.C.R. 624 · Decided: 22-07-1987 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.P. SEN · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
PALA SINGH (DECEASED) BY LRS. 
v. 
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 
JULY 22, 1987 
[A.P. SEN AND B.C. RAY, JJ.] 
Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954: 
s. 24--Allotment of excess land-Allottee acquiring proprietary 
rights-Chief Settlement Commissioner-Whether competent to cancel 
allotment by Managing Officer., 
Punjab Package Deal Properties (Disposal) Act, 19761 Punjab 
Package Deal Properties (Disposal) Rules, 1976-Rule 4--Package land 
in excess of entitlement cancelled-Purchase by allottee/successors-
in-lnterest-Permissibility of-Current market price-Determination 
by Tehsildar (Sales). 
All the surplus lands in the compensation pool of the Central 
Government as well as the excess area in the occupation of allottees 
were transferred under a package deal to the Punjab Government with 
effect from April 1, 1961. 
In October 1961 the Managing Officer, Rehabilitation Depart-
ment detected that there was excess allotment of land to the appellant 
in lieu of land left by him in Pakistan. By an order dated February 21, 
1962 he allowed the petitioner to purchase the said excess area. The 
petitioner deposited the required amount in the Treasury on March 6, 
1962. 
On reference, the Chief Settlement Commissioner held that the 
excess land which was found in October 1961 could not be sold by the 
Managing Officer under the Displaced Persons (Compensation and 
Rehabilitation) Act, 1954 as under the package deal this land had been 
transferred to the Punjab Government. 
The petitioner then made an application under s. 33 of the said 
Act to the Central Government which was dismissed. Thereupon he 
moved a petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution before 
the High Court, and contended that he is entitled to get the same land 
as he had already deposited the price in accordance with the order of 
H the Managing Officer, and that the said purchase could not be can-
624 
-
-
~ ... 
PALA SINGH v. U.0.1. 
625 
celled on the plea that the land had already been transferred to the 
A 
Punjab Government by the Central Government under the package 
deal. The petition was opposed by the respondent, who contended that 
the transfer of the land in dispute to the petitioner was void ab initio as 
under the package deal it vested in the State Government. The High 
Court held that the Chief Settlement Commissioner (Lands), had 
" i jurisdiction to cancel the aUotment even after conferment of the 
B 
proprietary right, that in view of the package deal the title to the land 
~. bad already passed to the Punjab Government in 1961 and no authority 
under the Displaced Persons Act could make auy order in regard to the 
sale of the land to the appellant at a concessional rate, and that only the 
Punjab Government could deal with the said land. 
Dismissing the appeal by special leave, 
HELD: 1. The Chief Settlement Commissioner had duly and 
properly made the order. He was competent under s. 24 of the Dis-
placed Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954 to cancel 
c 
y 
ii' the allotment of land in excess of the area the petitioner was entitled to 
D 
get under the provisions of the Act. [630F, 629E] 
Smt. Ba/want Kaur v. Chief Settlement Commissioner (Lands), 
Punjab, [1963] Punjab Law Reporter (Vol. 65) 1141at1187, approved. 
2. The excess land allotted to the appellant was package deal 
E 
---+ property vested in the State of Punjab. As such the same could not be 
sold nor could it be allowed to be sold to the petitioner-appellant by the 
Managing Officer under the provisions of the Displaced Persons Act. 
' ";'. The order of the Managing Officer, was, therefore, wholly without 
jurisdiction inasmuch as the said property was no longer in the compen-
sation pool of the Central Government. [629CD] 
F 
Ram Chander v. State of Punjab, [1968] Current Law Journal 
(Punjab & Haryana) 668 approved. 
3. It Is for the Government of Punjab to consider and decide 
Aether the legal representatives of the deceased appellant are entitled 
G 
to purchase the said excess land under the provisions of the Punjab 
Package Deal Properties (Disposal) Act, 1976. The Punjab Package 
Deal Properties (Disposal) Rules, 1976 prescribe procedure as to how 
the lands In excess of the entitlement, which have been cancelled, may 
be transferred to the aUottees or their successors-in-interest. Rule 4 lays 
down that the allottee or his legal representatives will not be entitled to 
H 
626 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 

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