PURSHOTTAM LAL DHAWAN versus DEWAN CHAMAN LAL AND ANOTHER

Citation: [1962] 1 S.C.R. 297 · Decided: 14-03-1961 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. SUBBA RAO · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

, ' 
- . -,._.. -
' . ·- - ··----' 
/: 
1 S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
297 
No other point was raised before us: The appeal 
fails and is dismissed with costs. -
" 
\ 
-. - '-._ 
· ' ' ' An~ dis:,;;issed. 
Mril11njay' p~,.i 
& A.not.%1r 
'. 
Y. 
' . 
' 
.Narmanda Bala 
Sa.smai ;s.· .d.1tu1A1r 
PURSHOTTAM LAL DRAW.Al.~·. 
ti. 
DEW AN. CHAMA?{. LAL . .AND. AN~J.!JliR 
. (K. SUllBA RAO, .RAoHUBAB DAYAL and 
', ' ' J. R., MUDHO~, JJ.) ' •' 
' 
"Eriaeuee Pr'!t!erly-Renision applicaJicin lo Custodian Generw-
. LimilaJion for fils."(!.-Cuslodfa'.',Gen.mil, powers of-Cancellation of 
allolmenl '" revmon-Admsnsslra!son of Evacuee Property Act, 
z950 (JI of z950), ss. 27, 56-Adminislration of Evacuee Property 
(Central) Rules, z950. rr. I4, 31(5). 
· 
The appellant and the respondent,' who were displaced ~r­
sons from West Pakistan, were,allotted lands in the same village. 
At the instance of certain persons, the first allotment was, can-
. celled and there was a re-allotment. The'respondent was aggriev-
. ed by this or~er and on September 27,' 1950, . he filed a review 
application, liefore ·the -Deputy. Commissioner for restoration of 
. the original ailotmerit but, it was dismissed on May 12, 1951, 
Against this order the- respondent preferred a revision applica-
tion to the Additional Custodian, who dismissed· the same on 
. August 25, 1952, .· Thereupon, the ,respondent.· filed a revision 
application before the Custodiail General on October 30. 1952. 
To this revision_ only the Custodian was made . a party; but .. the 
appellant., was· made' a party by order of the custodian General 
on August 25, 1953· After hearing th& parties the Custodian 
General on September 29. 1954· cancelled· part of the re-allot-
ment made in favour of the appellant.· .The. appellant contend-
.ed; '(i) that. the revision application to the Custodian General 
· was barred by time; 'and (ii) that the Custodian General had no 
power to cancel the allotment. . . '. , 
. · 
. 
. 
·Held, 'that the revision application.was not barred by time. 
Rule 31(5) provides that . .a revision petition to- the . Custodian 
Gt:neral "shill ordi11 .. nfy ~ ·lriade within sixty days of the 
38 
.. . 
' 
' 
S.Jiba Ra4 J. 
rg6r 
March I.f. 
298 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1962] 
I96I 
order sought to be revised". This rule is only a rule of guidance 
and not one of limitation and in law a revision can be entertain-
Purshottan1 Lal ed even after sixty days if the Custodian General in his discre-
Dhawan 
tion thinks fit to entertain it. In the present case the revision 
v. 
was filed within the time but the appellant was impleaded after 
Dewan Chainan the period of sixty days had expired. But it could not be said 
Lal &· Another that the Custodian General acted perversely or unreasonably in 
entertaining the revision. 
Subba Rao ]. 
Held, further, that the Custodian General had the power to 
cancel the allotment made on December 2, 1949. Under r. 14(6) 
the Custodian could not, after July 22, 1952, cancel an allot-
ment except under certain specified circumstances; but the 
second proviso to r. 14(6) permitted the Custodian General, in 
exercise of his powers of revision under s. 27 Administration of 
Evacuee Property Act, 1950, to cancel an allotment made by a 
lower authority on or before July 22, 1952. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: 
Civil Appeal No. 
754 of 1957. 
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and 
order dated September 29, 1954, of the Deputy Cus-
todian General, Evacuee Property, in Revision Peti-
tion No. 321 R/ADCG/53. 
Achhru Ram and K. L. Mehta, for the appellant. 
Bishan Narain, T. N. Sethi, A. N. Arora and K. R. 
Choudhury, for respondent No. 1 
1961. March 14. 
The Judgment of the Court was 
delivered by 
SUBBA RAO, J.-This appeal by special leave is 
directed against the order of the Additional Deputy 
Custodian-General of Evacuee Property, New Delhi, 
dated September 29, 1954, setting aside the order 
dated August 25, 1952 of the Additional Custodian, 
Rural, Jullundur, confirming that of the Deputy Com-
missioner, Ambala, dated May 12, 1951. 
The appellant belongs to a group of evacuees which 
may for convenience be described as Dhawan Group. 
Diwan Chaman Lal, respondent No. 1, was a dis. 
placed person from West Pakistan where he owned 
considerable properties. On September 1, 1949, in 
lieu of land left behind in Pakistan, he was allotted 
152.9 acres of land in village Kharwan in Tehsil 
J agadhri, District Ambala. The appellant and his 
--

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