LexSHRI MITHOO SHAHANI AND ORS. versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
7 S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS SHRI MITHOO SHAHAN! AND ORS. v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. 103 [P. B. GAJENDRAGADKAR, C. J., K. N. WANCHOO, J.C. SHAH, N. RAJAGOPALA AYYANGAR ANDS. M. S!KRI JJ.] Evacuee Property-Land Allotted to respondents-Subse- quently the same la~d allotted to appellants-Sanad issued to appellants under the Act-Allotment in favour of the appel- la;1t s2t aside-Can sanad subsist when allotment set aside- Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954 (Act XLIV of 1954), s. 33. The appellants and the five raspondents were displaced persons. The Deputy Custodian of Nizamabad District allotted about 60 acres of lrnd to the five respondents. The allotment was by way of lease. There \Vas no condition imposed upon them that they should cultivate the lands personally. While the lease \Vas continuing in force, the Government of India issued a Press Note on November 13, 1953 by which they announced that they had decided to allot evacuee agricultural land in Hyderabad State to displaced persons whose claims for agricultural land had been verified under the Displaced Persons (Claims) Act, 1950. The appellants made an application in pursuance of this notifi- cation and on May 4, 1954 the land now in dispute, though under a subsisting lease in favour of the respondents, was allotted to them. In the rnean time the Displaced Persons (Compensation Jnd Rehabilitation) Act, came into force on October 9, 1954. Under Section 20 of this Act, the Regional Settlement Com· missioner issued Sanads in favour of appellants in respect of these lands. Both the appellants and the respondents claimed these disputed plots. The matter went up to the Deput,· Chief Settlement Commissioner. He referred the case of both parties to the Government of India for action under s. 33 of the Act. The matter was considered under s. 33 of the Act b,· tho Deputy Secretary in the Rehabilitation Ministry "'r.o upheld the contentions of these respondents. The result was 'that the allotment made in favour of the appellants was set aside. It is the legality of this or<ler that is challenged in this appeal. Held-(i) The order of the Central Government was covered by s. 33 of the Act as one dealing with and rectif~;ing an error committed in relation to a "thing done or aclion taken'' \vith respect to a rehabilitation grant to a displaced person. Not merely the order of the R"gional Settlement Commi,sioner but the entire question as to whether the respondents as ori- gional allottees by way of lease were entitl"d to the relief of restoration was referred to the Central Government bv reason of the order of the Deputy Chief Settlement Commissioner. Both }he parties were heard on all the points by the Central Government before the orders were passed and it would not therefore be right to consider that the matter in issue before the Central Government was namely the correctness of the order of the Regional Settlement Commissioner, which read in vacuo might not be comprehended within s. 39 of the Act. (ii) It is manifest that a Sanad can be lawfully issued only on the basis of a valid order of allotment. If an order of allotment wh'ch is the ba•l'.s upon which a grant is made 1964 .~larclt 10 104 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1964) l964 is set aside it would follow, and the conclusion is inescapable Mitlwo Shaha . that the grant cannot survive, because in order that grant and Othe" · n• should be valid, it should have been etrected by a competent v. o'.licer under a valid order. If the validity of that order is Union of India and effectively put an end to, it would be impossible to maintain Othera unless there were any express provision in the Act or in the rules, that the grant still stands. On the facts of this case it was held) that where an order making any allotment was set aside the title which was obtained on the basis of the conti- nuance of that order also fell with it. Ayyangar, J. Partuma! v. Managing Officer, Jaipur, I.L.R. 11 Raj. 1121, distinguished. Balu;ant Kaur v. Chief Settlement Commissioner (Lands), I.L.R. [1964] Punjab 36, approved. av1L APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 552 of 1963. Appeal by special leave from the order dated April 28, 1960 of the Deputy Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Rehabilitation, New Delhi, purporting to exer- cise the powers of Revision under s. 33 of the Displaced Per- sons (Compensation of Rehabilitatio
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.