LexSMT. PRITAM KAUR versus DY. SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B SMT. PRITAM KAUR v. DY.' SECRETARY, MINiSTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS AND ORS. DECEMBER 5, 1996 (K. RAMASWAMY AND K. VENKATASWAMI, JJ.] Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation)Act, 1954: Sec- tions 2(b )(e) and 4. C Displaced persons-Claim for rehabilitation compensatiott-Require- ments of-Respondents and their father residents of West Pakistatt-Respon- dents had migrated to India in 1947-Father of respondents died in Pakistan in 1955-Respondents filed claim for rehabilitation compensation on December 19, 1955-Competent authorities held that they are entitled to compensation-<:onsequently land in possession of appellant allotted to D them-Appellant unsuccessfully challenged the proceedings-Appeal preferred before Supreme Court-Held the respondents as legal representatives suc- ceeded by intestate-succession to the estate left by their father in Pakis- tan-They are displaced persons they did not leave behind them, while migrating to India, any immovable property of their own in West Pakis- E tan-They did not file any claims on or before May 31, 1953, as enjoined in Section 2( e )-Nor were their claims verified before June 30, 1955 as enjoined in Section 4(1)-Therefore, the findings recorded by the authorities that the properties are the joint family properties in which the respondent Nos. 4 and 5 had a share and, therefore, they are entitled to file their claims, are ex facie F incorrect-The application filed by respondents in December 1955 was clearly barred and was not warranted-The entertainment of application and dis- posal by the authorities, though at the instance of the revisional authorities, was not in accordance with law. CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 429 of G 1986. From the Judgment and Order dated 1.8.85 of the Delhi High Court in C.W.P. No. 1377 of 1985. S.K. Bagga, Seeraj Bagga, Ms. Tanuj Bagga and S. Bagga for the H Appellant 570 • '· PRITAMKAURv. DY.SECY.,MIN.OFHOMEAFFAIRS 571 Y.P. Mahajan for the Respondent Nos. 1-3. A Ashok Kumar Sharma (NP) for the Respondent No. 4-5. The following Order of the Court was delivered : This appeal by special leave arises from the order of the Delhi High B Court, made on August 1, 1985 dismissing the writ petition on the ground that the conclusion reached and the findings recorded by the authorities under the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954, ( 44 of 1954) (for short, the 'Act') are a question of fact and exercising the power under Article 226 of the Constitution could not be reopened by C the Court. With a view to find out whether the conclusion reached by the learned Judges is correct in law, it is necessary to state the material facts. One Chandu Mal Sippy, father of respondent Nos. 4 and 5, Khushi Ram Sippy and Narain Dutt Sippy, was a resident of Nawabshah in West Pakistan. While the father and one of his brothers remained in Pakistan, D after the partition of India domain into Pakistan and India, the said respondents migrated in 1947 to India. Their father died some time in the last week of April 1955 in Pakistan. They filed their application under Section 4 of the Act on December 19, 1955 claiming rehabilitation com- pensation under the Act. In lieu thereof, the authorities at different stages E verified the claims and found them entitled to the compensation and consequentially the land in possession of the appellant was allotted to them. The appellant had challenged in the proceedings before the authorities under the Act but was unsuccessful. The High Court confirmed it. Thus, this appeal by special leave. The question arises : whether the respondent 4 and 5, though are displaced persons, are entitled to their claims verified under the Act? With F a view to appreciate their claims, it is necessary to see the relevant provisions in the Act. Section 2(b) of the Act defines 'displaced person' to mean "any person who, on account of the setting up of Dominions of India G and Pakistan, or on account of civil disturbances or the fear of such disturbances in any area forming part of West Pakistan, has, after the first day of March, 1947, left or been displaced from his place of residence in such area and who has been subsequently residing in India, and includes any person who is resident in any place forming part of India and who for that reason is unable or has been rendered unai:Jle to manage, supervise H 572 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996] SUPP. 9
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.