Supreme Court of India
CHAND KUMAR KAPURversusCHIEF SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER PUNJAB & ORS.
- Citation
- 1983 INSC 195
- Decided
- 12 December 1983
- Disposal
- Dismissed
- Bench
- D A DESAI
Holding
The Court held that the allotment could not be cancelled because the rule 14(6) amendment was not in force at the time of the allotment, rendering the cancellation invalid.
Summary
The appellant, a displaced person from West Pakistan, was allotted about six standard acres of land in a semi‑urban village under the quasi‑permanent scheme of the East Punjab Administration of Evacuee Property Act, 1947. In 1952 the Director of Rehabilitation proposed, and the Governor approved, a 50% premium cut for several villages, including the appellant's, before rule 14(6) of the Evacuee Property (Central) Rules, 1950 was amended on 22 July 1952. After the amendment, the Managing Officer under the Displaced Persons (Compensation & Rehabilitation) Act, 1954 attempted to cancel the appellant's allotment on the basis of the new rule. The Supreme Court held that the cancellation was invalid because the rule was not in force at the time the allotment and the premium‑cut decision were made, and actions taken prior to its promulgation were legally valid. The Court further found no justification for granting the appellant the benefit of the 50% cut while denying it to other allottees, and declined to order costs. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, though the Court left open the possibility of a settlement if the appellant pays the extra premium.
Issues considered
- Whether the Managing Officer under the Displaced Persons (Compensation & Rehabilitation) Act, 1954 could cancel an allotment made under the East Punjab Administration of Evacuee Property Act, 1947.
- Whether rule 14(6) of the Evacuee Property (Central) Rules, 1950, which was amended after the allotment, can be applied retrospectively to invalidate the allotment.
- Whether the appellant is entitled to the 50% premium cut and whether differential treatment of allottees is permissible.
Legislation cited
Subjects
displaced personsevacuee propertyallotment cancellationretrospective rulepremium cutcompensationsemi‑urban landundue enrichment
Judgment
. ..,.,
CHAND KUMAR KAPUR
••
v:
• '
CHIEF SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER PUNJAB & 0RS..
December 12, 1983"
B.
'
_, '
[D.A. OESAi, R.B. MISRA ANJ;I RANGANATH•MISRA, JJ.]
Displaced Persons (Cbmpensatiofz & Rehabilftation) Act,.195.4.
~ East Punjab A.dministrlztion of.E•'acuee property Act; 1947.
..... Displacedpe"rson-Allotted land in semi~urban area~Po/icy 'decision· taken
c
~O (n1pose cUt in allotment-Managing officer whether competent to canCel~a/lotment.
Evacuee Properly (Gentrafi.Rules 1950, Rule 14(6) .. .•
. ..
Action taken prior jo promulga.tion of rule-Whet he; v.alid.
. ·.'.
Interpretation of ShJlu!Js-DiSp/aced persons-Payment of compt:.nsat~
D
..
~ ion-Undue enricli111eht-Whether ·peftnissible. .
. •.·
Tl).e ap;>ellaD.t, an evacuee from WeSt .J:akistan wa,s. allotted about six
sta:tdard aC'res of land as disP:Iaced person under the .quasi-verman~t scheme·
in a semi-urban area. In 1952, the Director· of Rehabilitation submitted a prop~
'f _sat to ~he Fina·1ci'1I C~mmissioner, Ketief and R.ehabilitation-cum-CustOcH,g.n
that prenlium .cut of 5 villages, be enhanced from 18.3/4% to 50% as similarly.
·situated villages carried a cut_· of 50%. ·The propoSal also suggested-, that· in E
. ·tw0 other neighbouring villages where no· prCmrum cut ·had been applied
.' earlier, a shnilar cut.of 50% should be applied. This cut was imPosed ori. the
. . footing that these lands abutted the. Municipal area and had semi-urban
.
C!laracter. Thi.s p.ropJsal wa:-s accepted by ~the CoJJllliissioner as also by the
GovernOr be.f9re 22nd July; 1952 when rulel4(6) ?f ihe· Evacuee Property
.. (Central) Rules, 1952 _was amended, which provided that in respect of quasi-
·+ ' perffianent ·allottees c~rtcellat-ion. w:is pCrm·itted on-Jy·on grounds set oU.t in·
' rule 14(6)
A feW allot tees .ch<i!l~ngej the _order implementing the. pot icy decision
,,,_., of cut- of 50% b4t t~e writ petition was how~ver dismissed and.the Order Was
tonfirmed by this Court. ...
When steps. were taken to. enforce the cut, a·wriLpetition was inoved
by the a,,~lla';lt._A Sinite Judge of the Hi&:ti Court dismiss~d the petition, &nd ·
G
t~i~ order was Cqnfir.qied by the Di~isiori B6nch.
,In the aPpeal to this Corirt on the· question, as to-whether the :Managing
. Officer _Operating under tlle Displaced Persons (Compensation & Rehabilita"·
nop) ..\ct, 1954 could cancel the_ allotment made in_favour of .a d'ispJacca
P,er!,~ _µpd~r. th.e~East· Pur1J<i_~- .A.dministr.ation .of. .E~ac.ucp· .~ipper.ty- Act,
1
:1:947, aha: ~he scheffies.friimed,th.ereuiide'r. . '.
•
•
2 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1984] 2 S.C.R.
.A Dismissing the Appeal,
•
.HELD: 1. At the time when the proceedings "".ere initiated and the final
order dated the 3rd February, .19~2 was passed, the relevant provisions of sub~
.,
f.
clause (6) of rule 14 were not yet on the statute bo9k and the action taken prior
to their }lromulgation was perfectly valid and in .accordance with law. [4 DJ
•
2. There is no justification to allQw the benefit claimed by the. appellant.
H· The fesp:>itdent will however noi be precluded from· entertaining the offer by
the appellant, ir made, to pay the ext;a pre;i'um and/or any further .demand
\tith a view to o_btaining a lawful settlement of the entire property without
cut on the basis of the initial allotment. [5 G-HJ
3. People who were uprooted from Pakistan and became displaced persons
were to be corllpenstated on the· footing that they had left behind lands in
c Pakistan and lands of people who had left India for Pakist::i.n had become
evacuee propei;y and the compensation to the displaced persons could be by
~ettlement Of such lands. In s·uch cases no one. can look for undue e'nrichment.
· Qnce it is held as a fact ·that the properties are semi-urban and when this had
not been kept in view When original allotment had been-n1ade~ it should always
be pJssible to make an adjustment. Such an adjustment is just and fair. [5 C-DJ • _.
In the instant case, there were 117 allottees in ·villages which were
D declared semi-urban and. 97 of these allot tees paid the extra"premium anO
wt:re allowed to acquire the entire land given to them. Twenty allottees
including he appellant took steps to challif?,ge the decis~n regarding levy
of premiu·m as also cut'in the al1otments. There is no justificatioii as to why
any differential-.treament should be shown to these twenty allottees partic1:1-
larly when· all the 117 allott~es Stood . at par so far as the application of the
decision contained in the order cta·ted Februry 3, 1952 \"{as concerned ..[5 E-F]
·.E
. Basant Ram v. Union of India, [1962] 2 Suppl. S.C.R. 733; Hukum Chand
·etc., v. Union of India & Ors.~ [1973] 1 S.C.R. 896 referred .to. Hoshnak Singh v. ...~
Union of fndia & Ors., [1979] 3 $C.R. 399; distinguished.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : CiVi.l Appeal No. 2057 of 1970.
•
F F•om the Judgment and order dated 5th March, 1970 of the
Punjab & Haryana High Court at Chandi$arh in L. P.A. No. 159 of
1968. • .
Harbans Lal and Vinoo Bh~gat for the Appellant. •
S. K. Bagga for the Respondents.
_G The Judgment of the Court was delivered by •
RANGANATH MISRA, J. The only question which arises for co~-
- sideration of this Conrt in this appeal by ~y of special leave under
Article 136 of the Constitution against the Judgment of the Punjab
H &Haryan:a High. Court in: Letters Patent Appeal is as to whether the
Managing Officer operating underthe Displaced Persons (Compens~-
..
1 •
C.K. KAPUR v. SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER (Ranganath Misra, J.) ·3.
tion & Rehabilitatfon) Act, 1954 ('1954 Act' for short), could ca9cel A
the allotment made in favour ofthe appellant under the Ea.st Punjab
. Administration of E~acuee Property Act, 1947 ('P;injab Act' for
short)
and schemes framed thereunder. · ·
Appellant, an evacuee from West Pakistan owned agricultural
lrnd in DlstrictLyallpur. As a displaced person he was·allotted a little B
more than six standard acress of land iri Village Kotla, Tehsil J ulJundur
in Punjab under the quasi-permanent scheme. In 195:2 the Director of
Rehabilitation ,snbn:iitted a propo?al to the Financial Commissioner,
Relief and Rehabilitation-cum-Custodian that premium cut of. 5
•
villages, viz., Sufi Pind, Obin, Barring Khusropur and Alladinpur
be enhanced from 18.3/4% to 50% as similarly situated .villages near c
Jullundm City carried a cut of 50%. This proposal also suggested that
. in two other neighbouring villages, viz., Shekhpind and Kotla where·
no premium cut had been applied· earlier, a similar cut of 50% should
be applied. This was on the footing that these lands abutted the
Jullundur Mi.micipalarea and had semi"urban character: This proposal
:was accepted by the Commissioner as also by the Governor of the D
State "before 2nd July !952 when rule 14 (6) ·of the Evacuee Property
(Central) .Rules, 1950 was amended and in respect of qua_si-permanent
allottces cancellation ,;,as permitted only on grounds set out in rule
0
14(6). The allottees of Sheikh P;;1d and Kotla.villages challenge:! .the
orders implementing the policy decisio~. of cut of 50% Lefore the
hierarchy of rehabilitation authorities and moved the Eigh Court by E
filing a writ petition. When .that writ petition was dismissed, special
leai<e was obtained from this Court and the Court found that after
comi 11g into force of the 1954 Act and the Notification made on March
·.24, 1955, under s. 12 of the Act,.the lands 1lready allotted to displaced
persons ceased to be evacuee.property arid !iad becom~ part of the pool
created .under the I9§4 Act. Power was not a'"ilabie to be exercised F
· under the 1950 Act. •
Sub8'quently steps were taken to enforce the cut and a writ peti-
' don was moved bofore the High Court. When the single judge dismissed
the petition, and appeal was taken to the Division Bench and four
contentions were advanced on behalf of the appellant and- each ·one
was negatived arid the appeal was dismisstd. It may be stated that that
appeal was heard along with 19 others raising common questions of
·fact and law; Against this ;:on firming decision of.the Division Bench, •
leave having been ohtained from this Court, the present appeal has H
been filed.
• ...
.4 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1984]2 S.C.R ..
•
Admittedly, the lands allotted to the appellant in village Katia
.are close t6 the Municipal limits of the town of Jullundur and this
being a 'lllesiion of fact; has not rightly been disputed before us. The
B.igh Court has fo.•10d : · · · ·. • . · · ,
•
"It deserves. notice that the proceedings for the enhance- •
B . m~nt of the valuation
'
of the la~d' ofthe
.
village and the. . ."<
:· consquent r.ii~ing.ofthe cut fo 50 per cenf were initi.ated. as
,early .as the year 195!. After due verification by·· the sub-
ordinate Rehabilitation Authorities by actual ··i.sits on the
spot, the prop,;sal to .enhance the cut was finally approved by
• the Director General of Rehabilitation ·and subsequently
.,
.C .,, r.eceived the seal of approval by the order of the .Governor
on the 3rd February 1952. The significant fact is that·
sub'cfause (6) of rule 14 on which main reliance is befog
I
placed was substituted for the. old sub-rule by notification
. No. S..R.O. 1290 dated the 22nd July -1952 ... Itwould thus '
•.!
·appear that at the ti mo when the proceedings were initiated
D and tiie final order dated the 3rd February 1952, was passed, ·
the rdJvant provisions of sub-clause (6) of rule 14 were nof.
yet on the statute book and the actio11 Hken prior to their
promulgation was thus pe~iectly valid a1;d i-n accord.ancewith
law, T'1e order dated the. 3rd o( February 1952, therefore,
d.id not· have to conform ·to a·. provision which has been.
E . in'.roduced subsequently. ·It was 1ioi the contention of the
lear.1,.d.counsel that sub-clause (6):above said is to take effect
retrospectively nor do we find· anything in the said rule to.
·accord any such effect tll the same.~' · '
On· the aforesaid finding the High C:ourt h~ld \hat the scheme stood
altered. · .
"F
· We approve of this view taken by ihe High Court. Strong ,
r:\liance had qeen placed !Jy appellant's counsel on Basant Ra>n r. ·
'Union of lndia,(l) Hukum chaild etc. v. Union ef India & On.(') and
Hoshnak Singh v. Union'of lnaia & Ors(!). In Basant Ram's case thi•. •
C01i~t decided that the approval of.the Central Government_.on the
G ,basis of which the N~tification of March 24, 1955. had been made was
misconceived inasmuch as with the coming into force of the 1954 Act·
the Administration of Evacuee Property Act, 1950 (Central Act -31
• (I) [1962] 2 Suppl. S.C.R. 733
H (2) [1973] 1 S.C.R. 896
· (3) (1979] 3 S.C,K. 399
'
•
..
C.K. KAPUR ·v.· s~TLEMEN~ coMM1ss10NER (Ranganat,1 Misra, .f.) . 5
of .·i950) stood repealed .and the e~acuee· property; subject to the Act A
of 1950, had 6ecome a part of the compe.nsation: pool under the.AC! o(
1954. We agre~ witfi the apalysis of that decision by the High court.
So fa~ as the second .case is concerned; the question that· fCJI for. con'"·
sideration was whether.tules ~med by it could be given retrospective
. ·operation by the Central Government. when the siatute either expressly
or by necessary .implication had riot authorised rules to be. made with. B
• retrospective effect. So far as the lastcqse is concerned, the facts which
gave rise to the dispute were very different and-ihe ratio (hereof has ·
. no application' to the present set of facts. ' . . .
ln dealing wit.h a matter. of th-is type the broad perspective of ..
-
the scheme has to be 'kept in view. People who were uprooted from
·Pakistan and b~eame displaced persons were to be compensated on the
c
.footing that they had. left behipd lands.in Pakistan and lan~s of
· people who had left India for ,Pakistan had become evacuee properly_
and the compensation to .the displaced persons could be by settlement
of ouch fands. In ·a case of \1is. type no one can liiok for undt\e
enrichment_. Once iI ·is held as a fact,' that. the properties are semi:· ··
urban and admittedly· this .had not been kept in view wl].en original
D.
. ·. allotment had been. made .it should· always be possible to. make an
adjJstment. Such anadjustmeni'is just and fair. It is ·appropriate to
take.note of a very significant feature,'name!y, there were 117 allottees.
in these'viilag-'8 which were declared sub'urban and 97 of these allot-
tees paid the extra premium, and.were allowed to acquire the entire .
.E
land given to th.eln; Twenty allottees including the appellant took
steps 'to challenge the decision regarding levy of premium as also cut
in the allotments: There is ·no jusiification as to, why any differntial
treatment should he shown to these twenty alfottees particularly when
all the 117. allottees stood at par so.' far. as the application of "the
0
: decisio.n contained in the order dated February 3, 1952.is concerned.·
We do not know ifunder the changed circumstance the sa'me benefit is F
·t · ·available to be extended to the ippella.nt now, viz., permitting him to'
pay the extra premium at present. More. than 30 "years have passed
and with the passage of such a length of time changed situations must
have. come lo prevail. ·We s~e no justification to accept the appeal
• and allow the benefit claimed by the appellant. But our dismissal of
the appeal should not preclude the resp 0 n~ent authorities from G
. entertaining' the ofter by.the appellant, if made, to pay the ejttra pre-
mium and/or any further demand with a view to obtaining a law~ul ·
settlement of the entire NOperty without cut on the· basis of the initial .•
• we
allotment. make no order for costs in this ·appeal. .
H
N.V.K · "Appeal dismls11~..
...
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "displaced persons"Sign in to search