Created byFuzzy Cloud

Legislation

Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954

30 Supreme Court judgments cite this Act.

HANS RAJ BANGAversusRAM CHANDER AGGARWAL

2005 INSC 24229 April 2005Appeal(s) allowed

The Ministry of Rehabilitation constructed a market shop that formed part of the compensation pool under the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954 and was sold by tender to Hans Raj Banga. The predecessor‑in‑interest, Bhagwan Das, a squatter and not a displaced person, failed to bid and did not

SARASWATI DEVI (D) BY LR.versusDELHI DEVT. AUTHORITY & ORS.

2013 INSC 6529 January 2013Dismissed

The case concerned a 5‑bigha parcel of land that was an evacuee property acquired by the Central Government under the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954 and later put up for public auction. The appellant’s husband was the highest bidder in 1958, received provisional possession in 1960, but th

DR. RAJENDRA PRAKASH SHARMAversusGYAN CHANDRA & ORS.

1980 INSC 5527 March 1980Dismissed

Dr. Rajendra Prakash Sharma claimed title to a house he purchased under the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954, asserting that it had been declared evacuee property and that the sale was valid. The respondents argued that no declaration under Section 7 of the Administration of Evacuee Propert

SURINDER SINGHversusCENTRAL GOVERNMENT & ORS.

1986 INSC 20426 September 1986Case Partly allowed

The case concerned a plot of evacuee land that was auctioned to the appellant under the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954, but the appellant failed to pay the balance and the sale was cancelled. The Central Government, exercising powers under the Act, set aside the cancellation and granted t

UNION OF INDIAversusSHIV DAYAL SOIN & SONS PVT. LTD. AND ORS.

2003 INSC 12326 February 2003Dismissed

The appellant, lessor, leased a plot of land to the predecessor-in-interest of the respondent under the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954, using the terms of Appendix XIII to Rule 40(3). Clause 1(vii) required the lessee to construct a house but did not expressly limit its subsequent use. Th

UNION OF INDIA & ORS.versusHAR DAYAL

2009 INSC 125824 November 2009Disposed off

Har Dayal, Karta of a Hindu Undivided Family of displaced persons from Pakistan, filed a claim in 1950 for agricultural land as compensation under the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954. After partial allotment, the remaining land was not available and in 1989 he was credited cash compensatio

BHAGWAN DAS AND ANR.versusSARDAR ATMA SINGH

1995 INSC 77723 November 1995Appeal(s) allowed

The appellants, who were tillers of agricultural land allotted under the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954, held the land by a temporary sanad in 1954 that became permanent in 1965. After purchasing the land, the respondent, an absentee landlord, sought possession under Section 250 of the Ma

ABDUL QADIRversusMANAGING OFFICER CUM ASSIT. CUSTODIAN OF EVACUEE PROPERTY, JAIPUR & ORS.

1979 INSC 21622 October 1979Dismissed

Abdul Qadir bought a house in 1948, which was later declared evacuee property in 1951 despite neither he nor the seller being evacuees. He applied under Section 16 of the Administration of Evacuee Property Act, 1950 and obtained a restoration certificate on 27‑10‑1956, issued under the pre‑amendment procedure. The Assi

PALA SINGH (DECEASED) BY LRS.versusUNION OF INDIA & ORS.

1987 INSC 18222 July 1987Dismissed

Pala Singh, a displaced person, was allotted land under the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954. In 1961 surplus lands were transferred to the Punjab Government under a package‑deal arrangement. In 1962 the Managing Officer allowed Singh to purchase excess land and he paid the price, but the C

THE FINANCIAL COMMISSIONER (TAXATION) PUNJAB AND ORS.versusHARBHAJAN SINGH

1996 INSC 42922 March 1996Appeal(s) allowed

The respondent, a displaced person, obtained a land assignment under the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954, through fraud and collusion with revenue officials. The Settlement Officer initially granted the assignment, later set it aside upon discovering the fraud. The Financial Commissioner (

GURBAX SINGH S/O CHANDA SINGHversusFINANCIAL COMMISSIONER AND ANR.

1990 INSC 29621 September 1990Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, a retired army subedar and displaced person, bought a 7‑kanal parcel of land in a public auction in 1967 and was issued a sale certificate in 1973, making him the legal owner under the Displaced Persons Compensation and Rehabilitation Rules. The second respondent, also a displaced person, claimed continu

SAILEN KRISHNA MAJUMDARversusMALIK LABHU MASIH (DECEASED) REPRESENTED BY SMT. JASSI & ORS.

1989 INSC 6921 February 1989Dismissed

The appellant, S.K. Majumdar, inherited land granted to his father as a gallantry award in Lyallpur before 1950. After partition, the family received 69 acres of compensation land in Jullundur district, of which 19 acres were occupied by the respondent as a tenant. The respondent applied under Section 18 of the Punjab

KARAM CHANDversusUNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

2002 INSC 15219 March 2002Dismissed

The dispute concerned a 22-kanal agricultural plot that had been auctioned by the Rehabilitation Department and later sold to Rameshwari Dass. Karam Chand claimed to be the sub‑lessee of the land and applied for its transfer in his favour. After the sale was finalized and a conveyance deed issued to Dass, Chand filed a

HAJI SIDDIK HAJI UMAR & OTHERSversusUNION OF INDIA

1983 INSC 418 January 1983Dismissed

The plaintiffs, heirs of Haji Umar Kasam, claimed that his properties in Junagadh were not evacuee property and that the Custodian’s taking over of them was illegal. The Union of India argued that the properties had become evacuee property under the Junagadh Act and subsequent statutes, and that sections 28 and 46 of t

MAHENDRA PRATAP DUBEYversusMANAGING OFFICER, EVACUEE PROPERTY & ORS.

2018 INSC 106416 November 2018Dismissed

The appellant claimed title to a suit property through respondent No.4, alleging that a sale certificate issued by the Custodian of Evacuee Property under the 1950 Act was genuine, while respondent No.3 had obtained a sale certificate from the Managing Officer under the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitatio

STATE OF HARYANA & OTHERSversusPRADUMAN SINGH (D) BY LRS

2011 INSC 12615 February 2011Appeal(s) allowed

The predecessor‑in‑interest of Praduman Singh filed a writ petition seeking to quash a 21‑June‑1996 letter from the Haryana Rehabilitation Department that halted land allotment under the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954, and to compel the Tehsildar to allot him 20 standard acres in lieu of

HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD.versusM.C.D AND ANR.

2000 INSC 59613 December 2000Appeal(s) allowed

The Housing and Urban Development Corporation Ltd (HUDCO) was allotted 42.6 acres of Government land in Delhi in 1990 for development, with possession taken in March 1994 but a formal lease executed only in July 1997. The Delhi Municipal Corporation levied property tax on the vacant land for the period July 1990 to Mar

ISMAILBHAI I. KANSARA (D) THROUGH LRversusSTATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.

2021 INSC 33113 July 2021Dismissed

Ismailbhai I. Kansara, an encroacher, occupied an evacuee land parcel in Gujarat since 1976 and was served an eviction notice under Section 19(2)(b) of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954. He filed a writ petition challenging the eviction, but the High Court and the Division Bench dismisse

PIARA SINGHversusSTATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS.

2000 INSC 33310 July 2000Appeal(s) allowed

The case concerned a parcel of land that had been sold at a public auction in 1959 to respondent No.2 under the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954. After 23 years the respondent sought a corrigendum to include additional land that was in possession of the appellant, Piara Singh, who had been

GRAM PANCHAYAT OF VILLAGE, JAMALPURversusMALWINDER SINGH & ORS.

1985 INSC 1509 July 1985Appeal(s) allowed

The case concerned a dispute between Gram Panchayats and the Central Government over the vesting of Shamlat‑deh (village common) lands after the 1947 partition. The Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1953 vested such lands in the village panchayats, while the Administration of Evacuee Property Act, 1950 vest

DELHI ADMINISTRATION AND ORS.versusMADAN LAL NANGIA AND ORS.

2003 INSC 5318 October 2003Disposed off

The Supreme Court examined the acquisition of several parcels of land in Delhi that were claimed to be evacuee properties. The petitioners argued that the acquisition, made under the Section 4 notification of 23 January 1965, was invalid because earlier notifications had excluded evacuee lands and because such lands ve

GURUDASSING NAWOOSING PANJWANIversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRAAND OTHERS

2015 INSC 8336 November 2015Dismissed

Gurudassing Nawoosing Panjwani, a displaced person, was allotted land under the Displaced Persons Act but later faced competing mutation entries arising from a series of revenue proceedings. Multiple revisions and appeals were filed under the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966, culminating in a second revision before

NOORDUDDINversusDR. K.L. ANAND

1994 INSC 4526 October 1994Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, Noorduddin, claimed an independent right, title and interest in land (Khasra No.179) that he alleged was part of his ancestral property and not covered by the sale of evacuee lands (Khasra Nos.13 and 14) to Dr. K.L. Anand. The respondent sought possession of the latter parcels under a decree, and the app

SMT. PRITAM KAURversusDY. SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS AND ORS.

1996 INSC 14405 December 1996Appeal(s) allowed

The respondents, sons of a West‑Pakistani resident who migrated to India in 1947, filed an application on 19 December 1955 under Section 4 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954 seeking rehabilitation compensation for land in Pakistan. The authorities verified the claim and allotted land b

SHANKARA CO-OP HOUSING SOCIETY LTD.versusM. PRABHAKAR & ORS.

2011 INSC 3595 May 2011Appeal(s) allowed

The dispute concerned about 90 acres of land in Andhra Pradesh that had been declared evacuee property under the Administration of Evacuee Property Act, 1950 by a notification dated 11‑12‑1952 and later acquired by the Central Government under Section 12 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1

POHLA SINGH @ POHLA RAM (D) BY LRS. AND ORS.versusSTATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS.

2004 INSC 3535 May 2004Appeal(s) allowed

The case concerned land allotted to Dhanna Singh, a displaced person, under the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954, which was later declared surplus under the Pepsu Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1955 and allotted to Pohla Singh and others. Dhanna Singh (through his son Gurcharan Singh)

LT. GOVERNOR OF DELHI & ORS.versusMATWAL CHAND (D) THR. LRS.

2015 INSC 6384 September 2015Appeal(s) allowed

The subject land was originally evacuee property that was acquired by the Central Government under Section 12 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954 and placed in the compensation pool. It was subsequently auctioned to the respondents, who obtained provisional possession and later a sale c

SMT. RAJ RANIversusCHIEF SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER DELHI AND ORS.

1984 INSC 1033 May 1984Appeal(s) allowed

Nanak Chand, a displaced person from West Pakistan, disappeared in December 1954. His brother Dewan Chand claimed that Nanak Chand had died and produced a death certificate issued by respectable persons of the place where the family had resided. The Additional Settlement Commissioner, relying on that certificate, subst

TAR MOHAMMED AND ORS. ETC. ETC.versusUNION OF INDIA AND ORS. ETC.

1997 INSC 3441 April 1997Dismissed

The appellants claimed tenancy rights over a 689.28‑acre partnership property that had been declared evacuee property after one partner migrated to Pakistan. They argued that, under Section 12(2) of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954, a tenancy existing before 14 August 1947 could not be

Search Indian case law

Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.

Search by issue, statute, judge or citationSign in to search