STATE OF PUNJAB versus SURAJ PARKASH KAPUR, ETC.

Citation: [1962] 2 S.C.R. 711 · Decided: 04-05-1961 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: J.L. KAPUR · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 4 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

2 S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
711 
each exercise his power to investigate into an offence 
under the Act. 
I do not think that there would be a danger of such 
simultaneous exercise of the power to investigate by 
two officers. The offence will have to be registered at 
the police station within the limits of the jurisdiction 
of which the offence has taken place. Thereafter it 
would be investigated into by the officer at whose 
instance it was registered. If that officer happens to 
be·a station-house officer the special police officer may 
take out the investigation from his hands or allow 
him to continue it. If the offence is registered at the 
instance of the special police officer, the station-house 
officer would be bound to know of it from the station. 
house records and would stay his hands. 
Upon this view, therefore, I would allow the appeal, 
set aside the judgment of the High Conrt and of the 
Magistrate and remit the case to the latter for being 
dealt with according to law. 
BY CouRT: In accordance with the opinion of the 
majority, this appeal is dismissed. 
Appeal dismissed. 
STATE OF PUNJAB 
v. 
SURAJ P ARKASH KAPUR, ETC. 
(J. L. KAPUR, K. SUBBA RAO, M. liIDAYATULLAH, 
J. c. SHAH and RAGHUBAR DAYAL, JJ.) 
Evacuee Prop<rty-Lands allotted to evacuee by Custodian-
Government notification for consolidation of holdings-Draft scheme 
by Consolidation Officer substituting lands by lands of less value on 
Government direction-V a!idity of scheme-Application for issue o/ 
writ by aUottee-Maintainability-East Punjab Holdit1gs (Co.nsoZ.-
dation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, z948 (East Pun1ab 50 
of r948), s. 14-Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilita-
tion) Act, I954 (44 of 1954), ss. ro, 12-Administr~ti~ of Evacuee 
Property (Central) Rules, 1950, r. r4(6)-Const1tut;on of India, 
Art. zz6. 
Delhi 
Administration 
v. 
Ram Singh 
Mudholkar J. 
z96z 
May 4, 
Stale of Punjab 
v. 
Suraj PaYkash 
Kapur, etG. 
712 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1962~ 
The respondents, a joint Hindu family and evacuees from 
Pakistan, were allotted certain lands by the Custodian of Evacuee 
Property. A draft scheme for consolidation of holdings was 
framed and published by the Consolidation Officer in pursuance 
of a notification by the State Government under s. r4 of the 
East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Frag-
mentation) Act, 1948. The scheme under the directions of the 
State Government and contrary to the Act substituted lands of 
a lesser value for those already allotted to the respondents. 
Objections filed by the respondents were rejected by the Consoli-
dation Officer and the scheme was confirmed by the Settlement 
Commissioner. Before the confirmation, the Central Govern-
ment by a notification under s. r2 of the Displaced Persons 
(Compensation and Rehabilitation} Act, r954, acquired all eva-
cuee properties and after the said confirmation issued a sanad 
conferring proprietary rights of the said lands on the respon-
dents. 
The respondents had moved the High Court under 
Art. 226 of the Constitution before the issue of the sanad but 
the matter was finally disposed of by the High Court thereafter 
by setting aside the said scheme and directing the Consolidation 
Officer to dispose of the matter according to law. 
Held, that the notification issued by the Central Govern· 
ment under s. 12 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and 
Rehabilitation) Act, 1954. did not put an end to the rights the 
respondents had in the lands originally allotted to them by the 
Custodian and they had the right to move the High Court under 
Art. 226 of the Constitution. Sections ro and 12 of the said Act 
read with r. 14(6) of the Rules framed under the Administration 
of Evacuee Property Act, 1950, made it amply clear that the 
respondents held a quasi-permanent tenure in the said lands 
and as such had a valuable right therein. Such right continued 
while they remained in possession and the lands remained vest-
ed in the Central Government and with the grant of the sanad 
the limited right they had in the lands became a full-fledged 
right of property. 
Amar Singh v. Custodian, Evacuee Property, Punjab, [1957] 
S.C.R. Sor, referred to. 
The East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of 
Fragmentation) Act, 1948, did not empower the Consolidation 
Officer to take away an allottee's lands without giving him other 
lands of equal value or paying compensation nor did the Act 
empower the State Government e

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