LexSMT. PUJARI BAI versus MADAN GOPAL
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
SMT. PUJARI BAI A v. MADAN GOPAL JULY 12, 1989 [G.L. OZA AND K. JAGANNATHA SHETTY, JJ.] B Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954/ Displaced Persons (Compensation & Rehabilitation) Rules, 1954: Section JO/Rule 68 . . Grant of proprietary rights by Rehabilitation authorities with issue of Sanad-Right of authorities under Consolida- tion Act to modify or cancel the proprietary rights. East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Frag- mentation) A ct, 1948: Section JO-Transfer of property during consoli- dation proceedings-Has no reference and cannot have reference to transfer of Sanad issued by Rehabilitation Department. Constitution of India, 1950: Article 226-Writ Petition-Dismis- sal in limine on grounds of /aches or available of alternative remedy~ Decision does not operate as res judicata. ~. Civil Procedure Code, 1908: Section JI-Res judicata-Does not c D apply where suit, writ petition is dismissed in limine. E The appellant who migrated from Pakistan in 1947 was allotted certain lands. On 29.12.1962 allotment was made quasi-permanent in character, but on 29.4.1963, the lands were transferred to her permauently, by a Sanad issued under Rule 68 of the Displaced Persons -'4 (Compensation & Rehabilitation) Roles, 1954. F The respondent like the appellant had also migrated from Pakistan and on 29.12.1959 lands were also allotted to him but no entry could be made in the revenue record. On 29.6.1960 during consolidation proceedings no tuk was how- G ever made for the respmldent. He tiled objections which were rejected. He unsuccessfully appealed to the Appellate Authority-The Settlement Officer (Appeals). In the second appeal, the Assistant Director Consoli- dation of Holdings remanded the matter .to the Special Settlement Officer with the observation that because of the mistake of the Consoli- dation authorities there had been over-allotment, and the authorities H 383 384 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1989] 3 S.C.R. A will see that the first allottee is given the land first. As nothing happened for about three years, the respondent filed a writ petition in 1966 and the High Court directed implementation of the order of the Assistant Director Consolidation. The appellant was not a 8 party to either of these proceedings. c D E F Pursuant to the order of the High Court the Consolidation Officer started enforcing the observations of ibe Assistant Director, found that the land allotted to various persons was more than the land available for allottment, and in order to resolve this difficulty evolved a via-media procedure. He deprived some of the allottees of the land allotted to them, and the appellant was one such person. He allotted all such lands to the respondent. This was the commencement of the instant litigation. Against the aforesaid order of the Consolidation Officer the appellant preferred an appeal before the Assistant Director which was dismissed and the writ petition against the said order was rejected hy the High Court in limine with only one word, namely, 'dismissed'. The appellant having no other alternative instituted a suit contending that it was impermissible for the Consolidation Officer to adjust the lands, or take away any part of it which became .her absolute property by virtue of the Sanad granted on 29.4.1963. The trial Court dismissed. the suit. The Additional District Judge confirmed that judg- ment, and the second appeal to the High Court was also dismissed. In the appeal to this Court on the question; whether the lands given to the appellants by permanent Sanad could be deprived of in consolidation proceedings without giving them adequate alternate lands. Allowing the appeal, HELD: 1. The authorities under the Consolidation Act have no G jurisdiction or power to modify or cancel the grante of proprietary rights granted in the Sanad under s. 10. [392G I H -, 2. From s. 10 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation & Rehabi- litation) Act 1954, it is clear that the parties who were put in possession under initial allotment would continue to remain in possession even after its acquisition by the Central Government. But it is 9pen to the Central Government for the purposes of payment of compensation to i SMT. PUJARI v. MADAN GOPAL (OZA, J.J 385 such displaced person, transfer to him such property on such terms and A conditions as may be prescribed. Apparently this refers to a permanent tran
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.