LexSADHU SINGH (DECEASED) & ORS. versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[ 2'/ 9
SADHU SINGH (DECEASED) & ORS.
I'.
UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
September 2, 1978
[JASWANT SINGH, R. S. PATHAK AND A. P. SEN, JJ.]
Displaced Persons (Con1pensation and Rehabilitation Act 1954-S. 19-
l.And allotted to displaced person-A Ilot1nent cancelled without complyhzg with
Provisions 9f the Act-Validity of.
The respor..dent, \Vbo was a displaced person from West Pakistan, ¥.'as allotted
ce11ain land in India and \Vas given its p0ssession.
At the time of consolida-
C
tion of holdings in 1960 the Consolidation Officer included a part of this land
comprising 13-odd acres in the area of the Custodian. The respondent'it repre-
sent.1.tions protesting against the action of the Consolidation Officer having failed
at the different levels, th'e respondent moved the High Court under Art. 226 of
the Constitution. The High Court set aside the impugned orders of the Consoli-
dation Officer on the ground that they were wholly withorit jurisdiction and that
the concerned officer was not authorised to allot to the appellant the land which
D
was already comprised in a subsisting valid aUotment made to the respondent
On the question whether the land in dispute which had already stood allotted
in favour of the respondent could be allotted in favour of others without notice
to the respondent and without affording an opp0rtunity of being heard.
HELD : The respondent had succeeded in establishing that permanent pro-
E
prietary allotnient of the. land in dispute was validly niade in his favour. There-
fore the respoudent had enforceable right in respect of the land and it could not
be a1Jotted in favour of others.
(1292F-G)
Ailhou,gh in certain contingencies it would be open to the Managing Officer
or the Managing Corporation to cancel the allotment under s. 19 of the Dis-
placed Persoru; (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954 read with Rule 102
F
~of the Displaced Pers?ns (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Rules 1955, it can-
'
not be done unless the altottee is given a reasonlable opportunity of being heard.
[1293FJ
Jn the instunt case no action for cancellation of ud.lotment was taken under
the _provfaions of the Act and the Rules.
The action of the Naib Tebsildar-cum-
Managing Officer in aUotting :o the appellant the land. which had already stood
G
in the name of the respondent without complying 'With the relevant provisions
of th.e Act was in flagrant violation of the provisions of the la\v. Therefore, the
impugned cHfers were manifeistly illegal, arbitrary and unjust and could not be
sustained. {!293H]
0VlL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 2419 of 1968.
From the Judgment and Order dated 25-9-67 of the Punjab and
Haryana High Court in Civil Writ No. 1630/62.
ll
1280
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1979] 3 S.C.R.
A
S. K. Mehta, P. N. Puri, K. R. Nagaraja and G. Lal for the Appel-
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
lants.
K. L. Narula, District Attorney, Haryana, R. B. Datar and Girish
Chandra for Respondent No 1.
E. C. Agarwala for Respondent No. 14
(Rest of the Respondents Ex-parte)
The JudgJ11en't of the Court was delivered by
]ASWANT SINGH, J.-The litigation culminating in the present appeal·
(by certificate under Article 133 (1 )(b) of the Constitution) which
is directed against the judwent and order dated September 25, 1967,
of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in C.W.N. 1630 of 1962
setting aside the allotment dated May 23, 1960 made by Naib Tehsil-
dar-cum-Managing Officer, Fatehabad, District Hissar in favour of
Madan Mohan and others, and orders dated April 18, 1962 and
July 21, 1962 of the Assistant Settlement Commissioner and Chid
Settlement Commissioner respectively on the finding that "no part
of the holding which formed part of the land allotted to respondent
No. 14, Mehta Lal Chand, (hereinafter referred to as 'the respon-
dent') could, during the subsistence of such allotment and without
its cancellation, be. allotted to any one else" has had a very chequer-
ed career extending over well nigh two decades. It appears that the
respo11dt:nt who is a displaced person from Pakistan was found en-
titled to an allotment of 113 standard acres and 3 units of land in
li~u of 120 acres of land held by him as owner in Bhawalpur (Pakis-
tan). Against the aforesaid entitlement, the respondent was allot-
ted 90 standard acres and 6 units of evacuee land between 1953 and
1958 in different villages of Tehsil Fatehabad, District Hissar includ-
ing two areas measuring (1) 13 stanExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.