Supreme Court of India
RAMESH PARSRAM MALANI & ORSversusTHE STATE OF TELANGANA & ORS.
- Citation
- 2019 INSC 1178
- Decided
- 22 October 2019
- Disposal
- Dismissed
- Bench
- L NAGESWARA RAO
Holding
Allotment of land from the compensation pool after its transfer to the State Government can be made only by the Managing Officer under s.17; the CCLA, as a delegate of the Central Government, lacks such authority, rendering the 2003 allotment invalid.
Summary
The appellant, whose father was a displaced person from Sindh, claimed the balance of his verified land claim (43.7 standard acres) after having received an initial allotment of 40.4 acres. The Chief Commissioner of Land Administration (CCLA) allotted 19.26 acres in 2003, but the High Court held the CCLA lacked authority to allot land after the compensation pool had been transferred to the State Government in 1980. The Supreme Court examined whether the Central Government could continue to allot land post‑transfer and whether the CCLA, as a delegate of the Central Government, could exercise the allotment power vested in the Managing Officer under s.17 of the Displaced Persons Act. It held that the power of allotment resides solely with the Managing Officer; the CCLA’s appellate role does not confer allotment authority, and land transferred to the State remains part of the compensation pool but must be disposed of by State officers. Consequently, the 2003 allotment was invalid and the appeal was dismissed.
Issues considered
- Whether the Central Government can make land allotments to displaced persons after the compensation pool was transferred to the State Government on 24 May 1980
- Whether the Chief Commissioner of Land Administration, as a delegate of the Central Government, can exercise the allotment power under s.17 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation & Rehabilitation) Act, 1954
- Whether land transferred to the State Government is removed from the compensation pool for the purpose of allotment
- Whether the appellant’s claim is barred by delay, laches and the applicability of Rule 86 of the Displaced Persons Rules, 1955
- Whether a successor‑in‑interest can claim additional land after the predecessor’s death without having raised a grievance
Legislation cited
- Administration of Evacuee Property Act, 1950
- Displaced Persons Claims and Other Laws Repeal Act, 2005
- Displaced Persons (Compensation & Rehabilitation) Act, 1954s. 16, s. 17, s. 20
- Displaced Persons (Compensation & Rehabilitation) Rules, 1955s. 51, s. 52, s. 86
- Evacuee Interest (Separation) Act, 1951
- General Clauses Act, 1897
Subjects
Displaced personsCompensation poolLand allotmentCentral GovernmentState GovernmentManaging OfficerCCLADelayLachesSuccessor‑in‑interestPackage dealEvacuee property
Judgment
[2019] 15 S.C.R. 1051 1051
RAMESH PARSRAM MALANI & ORS A
v.
THE STATE OF TELANGANA & ORS.
(Civil appeal No.7477 of 2019)
OCTOBER 22, 2019 B
[L. NAGESWARA RAO AND HEMANT GUPTA, JJ.]
Displaced Persons (Compensation & Rehabilitation) Act,
1954 – ss.16, 17 and 20 – Displaced Persons (Compensation &
Rehabilitation) Rules, 1955 – r. 51 – Father of appellant was
C
resident of Sindh in the present day Pakistan and after partition,
came to settle in Hyderabad – Father of appellant asserted that he
was owner of 83.11 acres of land in Sindh and the same was verified
by the settlement claim officer – On basis of that order, appellant
applied for land in lieu of 83.11 acres of land left by him – Appellant
was allotted 40.4 standard acres of land – The father of appellant D
did not raise any claim for allotment of additional land till his death
– Thereafter, appellant claimed allotment of 43.7 standard acres
against balance of verified claim – The Chief Commissioner of
Land Administration (CCLA) allotted the land measuring 19.26
standard acres – The questions which were required to be examined
E
were as to whether the Central Government having transferred land
to the State Government, could make allotment to the displaced
persons after May 24, 1980 – And, whether CCLA, as a delegate of
the Central Government, could allot land though he exercises the
appellate powers, the power of allotment having been vested with
the Managing Officer as per s. 17 of the Act – Held: The Circular F
dated May 23, 1980 relates to administration, management and
disposal of compensation which is in terms of s. 16 of the Act – S.
16(2)(b) of the Act empowers the Central Government to constitute
such authority or Corporation for the purposes of sub-section (1)
i.e. custody, management and disposal of compensation pool – The
G
Central Government is competent to constitute any authority or
Corporation for the same purpose – Therefore, the transfer of land
forming part of compensation pool to the State Government has
legislative sanction in terms of s. 16(2)(b) of the Act – In the instant
case, the allotment was made by the CCLA as a delegatee of the
H
1051
1052 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2019] 15 S.C.R.
A Central Government – The Settlement Commissioner had no power
to make allotment of land falling in the compensation pool either
before May 23, 1980 or thereafter – Insofar as the power of CCLA
in terms of the scheme of the Act is concerned, the allotment of all
evacuee land is governed by the Act, therefore, the officers
competent to make allotment are the Managing Officers, whereas
B
power of appeal and revision are to be exercised by the Settlement
Commissioner or the Chief Settlement Commissioner – The CCLA
in terms of the scheme of the Act has no power to make allotment of
land as he exercises the appellate or revisional jurisdiction as a
delegate of the Central Government – The power of allotment is
C vested with Managing Officer only in terms of s. 17 of the Act.
Dismissing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.The first and the foremost question which requires
to be examined is as to whether the Central Government having
transferred land to the State Government, could make allotment
D to the displaced persons after May 24, 1980. Another question
which arises is whether CCLA, as a delegatee of the Central
Government, could allot land though he exercises the appellate
powers, the power of allotment having been vested with the
Managing Officer as per Section 17 of the Act. [Para 22] [1074-
E G-H]
2. In the State of Andhra Pradesh, initially a letter was
communicated on December 9, 1964 in response to the
communication from the Government of India regarding winding
up of certain organization of the Central Government and transfer
F of land to the State. However, on May 24, 1980, the transfer of
the land in compensation pool to the State Government was
completed when the circular contemplating administration,
management and disposal of remaining undisposed evacuee
property was issued. The circular provides that the Central
Government is to be given 15% of realised value of the properties
G after sale and the balance sale amount was permitted to be
retained by the State Government. The transfer of land to the
State Government is complete w.e.f. June 1, 1980 subject to the
conditions specified in the Circular dated May 23, 1980 such as
payment of 15% of realised value to the Central Government.
H Even if, such value is not paid by the State Government, it is
RAMESH PARSRAM MALANI & ORS. v. 1053
STATE OF TELANGANA & ORS.
between the State Government and the Central Government and A
not for any third party to make a grievance or dispute the same.
[Para 23] [1075-A-C]
3. All evacuee property in terms of notification issued by
the Central Government from time to time in terms of Section 12
of the Displaced Persons (Compensation & Rehabilitation) Act, B
1954 forms part of compensation pool under Section 14 of the
Act. Section 16 of the Act empowers the Central Government to
take such measures as is considered necessary or expedient for
the custody, management and disposal of compensation pool. The
Circular dated May 23, 1980 relates to administration,
management and disposal of compensation which is in terms of C
Section 16 of the Act. Section 16(2)(b) of the Act empowers the
Central Government to constitute such authority or corporation
for the purposes of sub-section (1) i.e. custody, management and
disposal of compensation pool. The Central Government is
competent to constitute any authority or corporation for the same D
purpose. Therefore, the transfer of land forming part of
compensation pool to the State Government has legislative
sanction in terms of Section 16(2)(b) of the Act. [Para 24]
[1075-D-F]
4. The argument raised by the appellant that the Central E
Government has notified the authorities to give effect to the
provisions of the Act, therefore, the Central Government has
retained control and administration of the evacuee property, is
misconceived. The land forming part of the compensation pool
was transferred to the State Government and the officers of the
State Government were entrusted with the functions of Managing F
Officer or Settlement Commissioner, as the case may be. The
allotment of all evacuee land is governed by the Act, therefore,
the officers competent to make allotment are the Managing
Officers, whereas power of appeal and revision are to be exercised
by the Settlement Commissioner or the Chief Settlement G
Commissioner. Such notifications facilitate the exercise of powers
under the Act by the officers of the State Government in respect
of land which stood transferred to the State Government. The
CCLA in terms of the scheme of the Act has no power to make
allotment of land as he exercises the appellate or revisional
H
1054 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2019] 15 S.C.R.
A jurisdiction as a delegate of the Central Government. The power
of allotment is vested with the Managing Officer only in terms of
Section 17 of the Act. [Para 28] [1078-D-G]
5. The allotment was made by the CCLA as a delegatee of
the Central Government. The Settlement Commissioner had no
B power to make allotment of land falling in compensation pool either
before May 23, 1980 or thereafter. Since the land stood
transferred to the State Government, the CCLA as a delegatee
of the Central Government, could not deal with the land forming
part of compensation pool which stood transferred to the State
Government. [Para 29] [1078-G-H; 1079-A]
C
6. On this ground alone, the allotment made in favour of
the appellant on February 26, 2003 cannot be sustained in view
of the Division Bench judgment of Punjab and Haryana High Court
in Ram Chander, as approved by this Court in Pala Singh. this
Court finds that the Central Government or its delegatee could
D not allot land after the same was transferred to the State as a part
of the package deal. [Para 30] [1079-B]
7. However, this Court is unable to agree with the High
Court that transfer of land to the State Government takes such
transferred land out of compensation pool. The land transferred
E to the State Government continues to be part of compensation
pool but it is required to be disposed of by the Officers of the
State who have been conferred the powers of the Managing Officer
or of the Settlement Commissioner for the settlement of the
displaced persons alone. It is only after the displaced persons
F are settled, the State Government may utilize the land for other
purposes. [Para 31] [1079-C-D]
Amar Singh & Ors. v. Custodian, Evacuee Property,
Punjab & Anr. AIR 1957 SC 599 : [1957] SCR 801
– referred to.
G Ram Chander v. The State of Punjab & Ors.
(1968) 2 ILR P&H 651 – approved.
Pala Singh (Deceased) by LRs. v. Union of India &
Ors. (1987) Suppl. SCC 201 : [1987] SCR 624 ;
Chameli Devi & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors.
H
RAMESH PARSRAM MALANI & ORS. v. 1055
STATE OF TELANGANA & ORS.
CWP No.14772 of 2000 decided on November 14, A
2017 ; Union of India v. International Sindhi
Panchayats & Ors. Civil Appeal No. 6079 of 2010
decided on April 28, 2014 – relied on.
Case Law Reference
[1957] SCR 801 relied on Para 8 B
(1968) 2 ILR P&H 651 approved Para 26
[1987] SCR 624 relied on Para 27
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No.7477 of
2019 C
From the Judgment and Order dated 12.02.2016 of the High Court
of Judicature at Hyderabad for the State of Telangana and the State of
Andhra Pradesh in Writ Petition No.4066 of 2006
Ms. Pinki Anand, ASG, J. Ramchandar Rao, AAG, Kapil Sibal,
D
M.S. Prasad, Ms. Aishwarya Bhati, Guru Krishnakumar, V.Giri,
C.S. Vaidyanathan, K. Rana Mukherjee, Sr. Advs., P. Ram Reddy,
Krishna Kumar Singh, Ramesh Kumar Mishra, Tripurari Roy, Varun
Thakur, Brajesh Pandey, Ms. Shraddha Saran, Varinder Kumar Sharma,
Sudhakar Rao Ambati, Nithin Pavuluri, Ms. Chitrangada R, Ms. Celeste
Agarwal, Ms. Kirti K., K. Shivraj Choudhuri, G. V. R. Choudary, Harsh E
Singhal, A. Sudhakar Rao, Tanmaya Agarwal, Chandra Mohan Anisetty,
Saurabh Mishra, Ms. Samridhi Pal, Abhishek Singh, Ms. Aashnaa Bhatia,
Onkar Singh, Arun Verma Sayooj Mohandas M., Ms. Snidha Mehra,
Ms. Kirti Dua, Ms. Tanisha Samanta, B. V. Balaram Das, B. Krishna
Prasad, T. V. Ratnam, P. Venkat Reddy, Prashant Tyagi, Dr. Rajaram
F
Punna, Akshay Nagarajan, Anirudh Gupta, P. Srinivas Reddy,
M/s. Venkat Palwai Law Associates, D. Bharat Kumar, Tadimala Baskar
Gowtham, Aman Shukla, Abhijit Sengupta K. Venkat Rao, Ms. Kanika
Sharma, Venkateshwar Rao Anumolu, Advs. for the appearing parties.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
G
HEMANT GUPTA, J.
1. The legality and validity of an order passed by the Chief
Commissioner of Land Administration, Andhra Pradesh1 on February
26, 2003 is subject matter of consideration in the present appeal. Vide
1
for short, ‘CCLA’ H
1056 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2019] 15 S.C.R.
A aforesaid order, 19.26 standard acres of land in Village Poppalguda,
District Ranga Reddy was allotted to the appellant by the CCLA (as a
delegatee of the Central Government) as balance of verified claim of
43.7 standard acres of land.
2. Some facts would be necessary to appreciate the contention
B raised by the parties. One Parsram Ramchand Malani, father of the
appellant, was resident of Sindh in the present-day Pakistan and after
partition, came to settle in Hyderabad. The father of the appellant
asserted that he was owner of 83.11 acres of land in Sindh. Such land
was verified vide an order passed by Settlement Claim Officer, Bombay
on November 22, 1952 (copy submitted by the appellant during the course
C of the arguments). On the basis of such order, the father of the
appellant applied for 200 acres of land in lieu of 83.11 acres of land left
by him in the West Pakistan (copy submitted by the appellant during the
course of the arguments). It is on the basis of such application that 40.4
standard acres of land (323.10 local acres) was allotted in District
D Hyderabad East, Village Bata Singaram, measuring 32.12 standard acres
(262.11 local acres) and in Hyderabad West, Village Boinapally
measuring 7.8 standard acres (60.39 local acres). There is no dispute
between the parties till such allotment. Such allotment was made prior
to commencement of the Displaced Persons (Compensation &
Rehabilitation) Act, 19542. Therefore, to regularise such allotment,
E another letter was issued on March 24, 1956 after commencement of
the Act. The father of the appellant did not raise any claim for allotment
of additional land till his death on August 10, 1988. It may be mentioned
that Rule 51 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation & Rehabilitation)
Rules, 19553 provides for scale of compensation in the form of land in
F accordance with the Land Allotment Scheme in the States of Punjab
and Patiala and the East Punjab States Union as set out in Appendix
XIV. A perusal of Appendix XIV would show that against area
abandoned of 83 standard acres, the entitlement is allotment of 45.8¾
acres. It has also come on record that the father of the appellant, the
displaced person, sold the entire land allotted to him soon after
G allotment.
3. The appellant addressed a letter to the CCLA on March 15,
2001 claiming allotment of 43.7 standard acres against balance of
verified claim. The CCLA addressed the letter to the Settlement
2
for short, ‘Act’
H 3
for short, ‘Rules’
RAMESH PARSRAM MALANI & ORS. v. 1057
STATE OF TELANGANA & ORS. [HEMANT GUPTA, J.]
Officer, Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India on May 5, 2001 A
but no response was received from the Ministry of Home Affairs. On
February 21, 2003, the appellant made another representation to the
CCLA pursuant to which CCLA allotted the land measuring 19.26
standard acres (148.3 local acres) in Survey No. 301 to 308, 325 to 328
and 331 part in favour of the appellant on February 26, 2003, which is
B
the subject matter of present appeal.
4. The orders of CCLA were stayed by a memo of Government
of Andhra Pradesh dated March 20, 2003. The Secretary to Revenue
Department in the Government of Andhra Pradesh initiated suo moto
proceedings in respect of six cases of allotment of evacuee property in
Hyderabad and Ranga Reddy District. Subsequently, a show-cause C
notice was issued to the appellant on August 20, 2003. The appellant
filed writ petition before High Court of Andhra Pradesh challenging the
show-cause notice and the stay order dated March 20, 2003. The High
Court disposed of the writ petition on November 14, 2003 with a
direction to the appellant to approach the Revisional Authority. The D
Revisional Authority dismissed the revision filed by the State on June 28,
2006 holding that the allotment of land is in accordance with the Act.
5. The said order was challenged by the State through the District
Collector, Ranga Reddy District by way of a writ petition before the
High Court at Hyderabad. Such writ petition was allowed on February E
12, 2016. It is the said order which is subject matter of challenge in the
present appeal.
6. The High Court has, inter alia, found that CCLA was not the
competent authority to make allotment of land, inter alia,for the reason
that there was no delegation by the Central Government in his favour to F
make allotment and secondly, for the reason that the land stood transferred
to the State Government on the basis of communication dated May 24,
1980 and was, thus, not available in compensation pool for allotment.
Thirdly, the High Court also found that the claim of the appellant suffers
from delay and laches.
G
7. A brief resume of the Act, process of allotment and subsequent
repeal of the Act needs to be recapitulated. In the aftermath of partition
of the country in 1947, there was large scale movement of population
from one part of the country to another country. Since, large scale of
population moved, there was a question of the rehabilitation of the
population migrating from one country to another to deal with the property H
1058 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2019] 15 S.C.R.
A of the population who left the country. The property of the persons who
left the country vested in the Union under the Administration of Evacuee
Property Act, 1950. The custodian was responsible for preservation,
management and administration of evacuee property as was done by
various State legislatures. However, the law governing allotment of
evacuee property to displaced persons was statutorily provided by the
B
Act. The procedure was that the persons who migrated to the country
will apply for verification of their property including land left behind in
West Pakistan and such property was verified on the basis of revenue
record either received by the Government of India or verified by the
revenue authorities in Pakistan. Such verification of the property was
C called as verified claim in terms of Section 2(e) of the Act. Such verified
claim entitles the migrant defined as displaced person in Section 2(b) of
the Act for compensation in the manner prescribed under Section 8 of
the Act. The property left by the persons migrating to Pakistan (evacuee
persons) was put in the compensation pool as defined in Section 2(a) of
the Act and was a source of resettling the displaced persons.
D
8. The process of resettling the displaced persons is based upon
the following steps as found by this Court in Amar Singh & Ors. v.
Custodian, Evacuee Property, Punjab & Anr.4:
“1. Registration and verification of land claims.
E 2. Assessment and valuation of such claims.
3. Classification of the villages and of lands of evacuees available
for allotment.
4. Allocation of the claims to various areas with reference to such
F classification.
5. Allotment of lands to individuals with reference to the valuation
of their claims, guided by various considerations, priorities and
preferences and so forth administratively determined.”
9. The first step is registration and verification of land claims i.e.
G verification of the property such as land in the present day Pakistan.
The assessment and valuation of such claims is the second step which is
required, for which Rule 51 read with Appendix XIV prescribes the
scale of land which can be allotted in view of verified claim of the property
left in the present day Pakistan. The third step is identification of evacuee
H 4
AIR 1957 SC 599
RAMESH PARSRAM MALANI & ORS. v. 1059
STATE OF TELANGANA & ORS. [HEMANT GUPTA, J.]
land available which forms part of the compensation pool. Such land A
including urban and rural land available for allotment with reference to
the valuation of the claims guided by other consideration, priorities and
preferences.
10. The displaced person as defined in Section 2(b) of the Act
includes successor-in-interest of any such person. Such displaced person B
having a verified claim has to make an application for payment of
compensation on or before June 30, 1955. The Settlement Commissioner
would make an inquiry in the manner prescribed to determine the amount
of compensation. A displaced person is entitled to payment of cash
compensation or compensation in terms of land out of compensation
pool in terms of Section 8 of the Act. Section 12 empowers the Central C
Government to acquire any evacuee property for a public purpose being
a purpose connected with the relief and rehabilitation of displaced persons.
In terms of sub-section (4) of Section 12, all evacuee property acquired
in terms of sub-section (1) or sub-section (3) forms part of the
compensation pool. Section 16 of the Act empowers the Central D
Government to take such measures as it considers necessary or expedient
for the custody, management and disposal of the compensation pool.
Section 16(2)(b) empowers the Central Government to constitute such
authority or corporation as it may deem fit for the management and
disposal of the compensation pool.
E
11. The Managing Officer or the Managing Corporation is
competent to transfer any property out of compensation pool in terms of
Section 20 of the Act but the allotment is as per the valuation determined
by the Settlement Commissioner in terms of Section 20(1)(c) of the Act.
The relevant provisions of the statute read as under:
F
“THE DISPLACED PERSONS (COMPENSATION &
REHABILITATION) ACT, 1954
2(a) “compensation pool” means the compensation pool constituted
under section 14;
2(b) “displaced person” means any person who, on account of G
the setting up of the Dominions of India and Pakistan, or on account
of civil disturbances or the fear of such disturbances in any area
now 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
H
1060 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2019] 15 S.C.R.
A includes any person who is resident in any place now forming
part of India and who for that reason is unable or has been
rendered unable to manage, supervise or control any immovable
property belonging to him in West Pakistan, and also includes the
successors- in interest of any such person;
B xx xx xx
4. Application for payment of compensation. – (1) The Central
Government shall, from time to time, but not later than the thirtieth
day of June, 1955, by notification in the Official Gazette, require
all displaced persons having a verified claim to make applications
C for the payment of compensation and any such notification may
be issued with reference to displaced persons residing in any State
or in any one of a group of States.
xx xx xx
8. Form and manner of payment of compensation. – (1) A
D displaced person shall be paid out of the compensation pool the
amount of net compensation determined under sub- section (3) of
section 7 as being payable to him, and subject to any rules that
may be made under this Act, the Settlement Commissioner or
any other officer or authority authorised by the Chief Settlement
E Commissioner in this behalf may make such payment in any one
of the following forms or partly in one and partly in any other
form, namely:-
(a) in cash;
(b) in Government bonds;
F
(c) by sale to the displaced person of any property from the
compensation pool and setting off the purchase money against
the compensation payable to him;
(d) by any other mode of transfer to the displaced person of any
property from the compensation pool and setting off the valuation
G of the property against the compensation payable to him;
(e) by transfer of shares or debentures in any company or
corporation;
(f) in such other form as may be prescribed.
H
RAMESH PARSRAM MALANI & ORS. v. 1061
STATE OF TELANGANA & ORS. [HEMANT GUPTA, J.]
(2) For the purpose of payment of compensation under this Act, A
the Central Government may, by rules, provide for all or any of
the following matters, namely:-
(a) the classes of displaced persons to whom compensation may
be paid;
(b) the scales according to which, the form and manner in which, B
and the instalment by which, compensation may be paid to different
classes of displaced persons;
(c) the valuation of all property, shares and debentures to be
transferred to displaced persons;
C
(d) any other matter which is to be, or may be, prescribed.
xx xx xx
14. Compensation pool. – (1) For the purpose of payment of
compensation and rehabilitation grants to displaced persons, there
shall be constituted a compensation pool which shall consist of— D
(a) all evacuee property acquired under section 12, including the
sale proceeds of any such property and all profits and income
accruing from such property;
(b) such cash balances lying with the Custodian as may, by order
of the Central Government, be transferred to the compensation E
pool;
(c) such contributions, in any form whatsoever, as may be made
to the compensation pool by the Central Government or any State
Government;
F
(d) such other assets as may be prescribed.
(2) The compensation pool shall vest in the Central Government
free from all encumbrances and shall be utilised in accordance
with the provisions of this Act and the rules made thereunder.
xx xx xx G
16. Management of compensation pool. – (1) The Central
Government may take such measures as it considers necessary
or expedient for the custody, management and disposal of the
H
1062 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2019] 15 S.C.R.
A compensation pool in order that it may be effectively utilised in
accordance with the provisions of this Act.
(2) In particular, and without prejudice to the generality of the
foregoing power, the Central Government may, for the purposes
referred to in sub-section (1), by notification in the Official Gazette.-
B (a) appoint such officers as it may deem fit (hereinafter referred
to as managing officers); or
(b) constitute such authority or corporation, as it may deem fit
(hereinafter referred to as managing corporation).
C (3) Every managing corporation shall be constituted under such
name and shall consist of such number of persons as may be
specified in the notification, and every such corporation shall be a
body corporate having perpetual succession and a common seal
and shall by the said name sue and be sued:
D Provided that one-third of the members of every managing
corporation shall be non-officials.
xx xx xx
17. Functions and duties of managing officers and managing
corporations.- (1) All managing officers or managing corporations
E shall perform such functions as may be assigned to them by or
under this Act under the general superintendence and control of
the Chief Settlement Commissioner.
(2) Subject to the provisions of this Act and the rules made
thereunder, a managing officer or managing corporation may take
F such measures as he or it considers necessary or expedient for
the purpose of securing, administering, preserving, managing or
disposing of any property in the compensation pool entrusted to
him or it and generally for the purpose of satisfactorily discharging
any of the duties imposed on him or it by or under this Act and
may for any such purpose as aforesaid, do all acts and incur all
G expenses necessary or incidental thereto.
(3) xx xx xx
xx xx xx
H
RAMESH PARSRAM MALANI & ORS. v. 1063
STATE OF TELANGANA & ORS. [HEMANT GUPTA, J.]
20. Power to transfer property out of the compensation A
pool. – (1) Subject to any rules that may be made under this Act,
the managing officer or managing corporation may transfer any
property out of the compensation pool-
(a) by sale of such property to a displaced person or any association B
of displaced persons, whether incorporated or not, or to any other
persons, whether the property is sold by public auction or
otherwise;
(b) by lease or any such property to a displaced person or any
association of displaced person, whether incorporated or not, or C
to any other person;
(c) by allotment of any such property to a displaced person or an
association of displaced persons whether incorporated or not, or
to any other person, on such valuation as the Settlement
Commissioner may determine; D
(d) in the case of a share of an evacuee in a company, by transfer
of such share to a displaced person or any association of displaced
persons, whether incorporated or not, or to any other person.
12. To give effect to the provisions of the Statute, the Central
E
Government framed the Rules in exercise of the power conferred under
Section 40 of the Act. Rule 3 provides for an application for compensation
to be submitted by a displaced person having a verified claim and in case
of death of a displaced person, by his successor-in-interest. Rule 11
contemplates verification of claim by the Settlement Commissioner. Rule
49 contemplates that a displaced person having a verified claim in respect F
of an agricultural land be paid compensation by allotment of agricultural
land. The scale of compensation in the form of land is set out in Appendix
XIV. In terms of Rule 52, the Central Government may from time to
time having regard to the availability of land, determine the maximum
area of land which may be allotted in the first instance to a person having
G
a verified claim for agricultural land. Rule 86 deals with an application
for compensation by successor-in-interest. Some of the Rules which
are relevant for examining the issues in hand are reproduced hereunder:
H
1064 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2019] 15 S.C.R.
A “THE DISPLACED PERSONS (COMPENSATION &
REHABILITATION) RULES, 1955
3. Persons entitled to make application for compensation -
An application for compensation may be made by a displaced
person having a verified claim or if such displaced person is dead,
B by his successor-in-interest.
xx xx xx
11. Enquiry by the Settlement Commissioner on receipt of
duplicate copy of compensation application - (1) On receipt
of a duplicate copy of an application for compensation from a
C Settlement Officer, the Settlement Commissioner (Headquarters)
shall verify the assessed value of the claim as stated in the
application, with the final order in respect thereof in the claims
record.
xx xx xx
D
34. Date of transfer. – Where any property is transferred to any
person under this chapter, the property shall be deemed to have
been transferred to him:-
(a) xx xx xx
E (b) xx xx xx
(c) xx xx xx
(d) in any other case, from such date as the Central Government
may, by general or special order, specify.
F xx xx xx
49. Compensation normally to be paid in the form of land -
Except as otherwise provided in this chapter, a displaced person
having a verified claim in respect of agricultural land shall, as far
as possible, be paid compensation by allotment of agricultural land.
G Provided that where any such person wishes to have his claim
satisfied against property other than agricultural land, he may
purchase such property by bidding for it at an open auction or by
tendering for it and in such a case the purchase price of the property
shall be adjusted against the compensation due on his verified
claim for agricultural land which shall be converted into cash at
H the rate specified in rule 56.
RAMESH PARSRAM MALANI & ORS. v. 1065
STATE OF TELANGANA & ORS. [HEMANT GUPTA, J.]
xx xx xx A
51. Scale of compensation in the form of land - The scale for
the allotment of land as compensation in respect of a verified
claim for agricultural land shall be the same as in the quasi-
permanent Land Allotment Scheme in the States of Punjab and
Patiala and the East Punjab States Union as set out in Appendix B
XIV.
Explanation - If any public dues are recoverable, the allottable
area shall be reduced correspondingly.
52. Manner of allotment of land - The Central Government
may, from time to time, having regard to the availability of land, C
determine the maximum area of land which may be allotted in the
first instance to a person having a verified claim for agricultural
land. Such area shall be the area permissible under the scheme
referred to in rule 51 or thirty standard acres whichever is less:
Provided that the balance, if any, of the area permissible for D
allotment according to the scale referred to in Rule 51 shall be
given later in instalments as and when more land becomes available
for allotment.
xx xx xx
E
86. Proof by successor-in-interest - (1) On receipt of an
application for compensation from any person claiming to be a
successor-in-interest of any deceased claimant as provided in rule
4, the Regional Settlement Commissioner or the Settlement
Officer, as the case may be, take steps for the determination of
his claim. F
xx xx xx”
13. The Revenue Department of Government of Andhra Pradesh
on December 9, 1964 in response to the communication of the Regional
Settlement Commissioner, Bombay had informed its officials, vide
Annexure P/2, that the Settlement Organization was in the process of G
winding up and that they had to find ways and means for speeding up
the process by transferring certain items of this work to the State
Authorities. The Government of India communicated the sanction of
the President to transfer certain items of work which were dealt with by
the Office of the Regional Settlement Commissioner, Bombay to the H
1066 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2019] 15 S.C.R.
A State Government on payment of agency charges. The items of work
transferred were collection of rent dues of acquired evacuee properties;
disposal of remaining acquired evacuee properties including urban
agricultural lands; disposal of unacquired evacuee properties; disposal
of rural agricultural lands and recoveries in respect of evacuee rights
transferred to locals; collection of installments on price of land transferred
B
on installment basis; and collection of lease money from the occupants
of evacuee lands on percentage basis of the amount collected by the
State Government.
14. It is thereafter, on May 24, 1980, the Ministry of Supply and
Rehabilitation Department, Department of Rehabilitation, Government
C of India issued letter in respect of transfer of items of work relating to
administration, management and disposal of undisposed acquired evacuee
lands/properties and realisation of rental demands etc. It was
communicated as under:
“Subject: Transfer of items of work relating to administration,
D management and disposal of undisposed of acquired evacuee
lands/properties and realisation of rental demands etc.
Sir,
I am directed to state that the question of administration,
E management and disposal of the remaining undisposed of acquired
evacuee lands/properties and realisation of arrears of rental
demands outstanding against individuals in respect of evacuee
properties in the State of Andhra Pradesh has been under
consideration of the Government of India for some time past.
F 2. It has been observed that only a limited number of acquired
evacuee agricultural lands/properties remain to be disposed of.
Besides, arrears on account of rural and urban evacuee properties
which run into considerable amount have become long overdue
for recovery and their realisation is presenting considerable
difficulty.
G
3. With a view to effecting economy in expenditure and ensuring
proper arrangement for administration, management and disposal
of acquired evacuee lands/properties and recovery of arrears of
rent of rural and urban evacuee properties it has been decided in
public interest to transfer the aforesaid items of work to the Govt.
H of Andhra Pradesh for disposal of the residuary work in a
RAMESH PARSRAM MALANI & ORS. v. 1067
STATE OF TELANGANA & ORS. [HEMANT GUPTA, J.]
satisfactory manner and for carrying out the purposes of the A
Displaced Persons (Compensation & Rehabilitation) Act, 1954
and the Rules framed thereunder.
4. I am directed to convey the sanction of the President of India
to the transfer of the work relating to administration, management
and disposal of the remaining undisposed of acquired lands/evacuee B
properties and recovery of arrears of rent etc. to State
Government on the terms and conditions specified against each:
5. I. URBAN EVACUEE PROPERTIES AND URBAN EVACUEE
LANDS.
C
Sl. Description of assets Payment to be made by
No. the State Govt. to the
Govt. of India
(a) 39 properties in the 15% of the reserve price.
Districts of Khamman,
Medak, and
Mahboobnagar, the reserve D
price of which is
Rs.1,62,000/- (Rupees one
lakh and sixty two
thousands).
(b) xx xx
(c) E
(d)
The properties, would, thereafter, be managed and disposed of by
the State Government who would pay to the Government of India
15% of the reserve price/market value as assessed in 1953 or
15% of the value realised as a result of disposal of these properties, F
as the case may be. The balance amount would be retained by
the State Government.
II. RURAL AGRICULTURAL LAND.
xx xx xx
G
III. xx xx xx
IV. DISPOSAL OF JUDICIAL CASES RELATING TO
EVACUEE PROPERTIES IN THE STATE OF ANDHRA
PRADESH
H
1068 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2019] 15 S.C.R.
A xx xx xx
V. xx xx xx
VI.RESIDUARY WORK IN THE SETTLEMENT WING
Residuary work relating to the properties etc. already disposed of
B will be taken over by the Sate Govt. and dealt with by them
hereafter.
VII. RECORDS
The files pertaining to the litigation work referred to in item No.
(V) above will be handed over by a representative of this
C Department at Hyderabad. The files pertaining to the residuary
work vide para (VI) above will also be transferred to the State
Government. In addition, there are about 6000 closed files in the
Central Record Room of the Settlement Wing pertaining to the
properties already disposed of. Necessary arrangements for
transferring this record would be made by this Department. The
D
expenditure on their transportation from New Delhi to Hyderabad
would be met by this Department.
VIII. TRANSFER OF WORK UNDER THE EVACUEE
INTEREST (SEPARATION) ACT, 1951
E The work relating to administration, management and disposal of
composite properties in terms of the Evacuee Interest (Separation)
Act, 1951 shall stand transferred to the State Government with
effect from 1.6.1980.
(a) The State Government shall appoint a Competent Officer
F under Section 4 and an Appellate Officer under Section 13 of the
said Act, to deal with the composite properties in respect of which
proceedings under any provisions of the said Act have already
been started or may be started hereafter.
(b) After the evacuee interest is separated, the State Government
G shall deal with and dispose of the properties in accordance with
the Evacuee Interest (Separation) Act, 1951 and the Displaced
Persons (Compensation & Rehabilitation) Act, 1954.
(c) The State Government shall pay to the Govt. of India the
following share out of the sale proceeds of evacuee share in the
composite properties:
H
RAMESH PARSRAM MALANI & ORS. v. 1069
STATE OF TELANGANA & ORS. [HEMANT GUPTA, J.]
(i) In the case of urban evacuee properties and urban evacuee A
lands. 15% of the amount realised.
(ii) In the case of rural evacuee lands/ properties.5% of the
amount realised.
The remaining share of the sale proceeds in the evacuee interest
shall be retained by the State Government on account of their B
administrative and other charges.
The entire expenditure on account of the administration,
management and disposal of the composite properties in Andhra
Pradesh and the establishment of the Competent Officer and
Appellate Officer shall be borne by the State Government. C
IX. THE REMAINING UNDISPOSED OF URBAN EVACUEE
PROPERTIES URBAN EVACUEE LANDS AND RURAL
AGRICULTURAL LANDS.
All the lands/properties held and dealt with by the Custodian of D
Evacuee Property under the Administration of Evacuee Property
Act, 1950 which have not yet been finally disposed of under the
provisions of the aforesaid Act or the Displaced Persons
(Compensation & Rehabilitation) Act, 1954 shall stand transferred
to the Government of Andhra Pradesh with effect from 1.6.1980.
E
6. The arrangement detailed above shall not in any way affect
the payment of compensation to the displaced persons having
unsatisfied claims for properties left in former West Pakistan in
accordance with the provisions of the Displaced Persons
(Compensation & Rehabilitation) Act, 1954. Their claims shall,
as usual, be dealt with the Officers of the Government of India. F
The liability to satisfy the claims of the displaced persons shall
continue to rest with the Government of India.
7. xx xx xx
8. The properties mentioned above should be deemed to have
been completely transferred to the Government of Andhra Pradesh G
with effect from 1.6.1980. The entire sale price thereof payable
on this account by the State Government in respect of various
categories of properties will accordingly become due on 1.6.1980
and shall be paid in six equal half-yearly installments without
H
1070 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2019] 15 S.C.R.
A payment of any interest thereon. The first half-yearly instalment
due on 1.6.1980 shall be paid by the State Government on 31.3.1981
and subsequent half-yearly instalments will be computed from
that date. However, if the instalments are not paid on due dates
as mentioned above, interest will be payable on any unpaid amount
for the period of late payment, the rate of interest being fixed by
B
the Central Government from time to time. The total amount
payable by the State Govt. in this respect to the State Government
by the Deputy Chief Settlement Commissioner (G), Settlement
Wing, Department of Rehabilitation, New Delhi.
9. xx xx xx”
C
1) It is, thereafter, Ministry of Supply and Rehabilitation,
Government of India issued different notifications authorising
Officers of the State to discharge the functions of the Central
Government under the Act. The notifications dated June 23, 1980
appointing Tehsildar as Managing Officer; Joint Collectors as
D Settlement Commissioners and Commissioner of Survey &
Settlement as the Settlement Commissioner in respect of property
forming part of compensation pool within the State reads as under:
“S.O. 2006- In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section
(1) of Section 3 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and
E Rehabilitation) Act, 1954 (44 of 1954). The Central Government
hereby appoints all Tehsildars of various Talukas in the State of
Andhra Pradesh, to be the Managing Officers for, the purpose of
performing in addition to their own duties as Tehsildars, the
functions assigned to a Managing Officer by or under said Act, in
F respect of properties forming part of compensation pool within
the State of Andhra Pradesh.
(2) This supersedes Government of India, Ministry of
Rehabilitation, office of the Chief Settlement Commissioner’s
Notification No. 5(10)/L&R/63-A dated 22.1.1965.
G S.O. 2007- In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section
(1) of Section 3 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and
Rehabilitation) Act, 1954 (44 of 1954), the Central Government
hereby appoints the Joint Collectors in the State of Andhra Pradesh
as Settlement Commissioners in their respective districts for the
H
RAMESH PARSRAM MALANI & ORS. v. 1071
STATE OF TELANGANA & ORS. [HEMANT GUPTA, J.]
purpose of performing in addition to their own duties as Joint A
Collectors the functions assigned to a Settlement Commissioner
by or under the said Act, in regard to the management, agricultural
lands, shops and vacant sites forming part of the Compensation
Pool within the State of Andhra Pradesh.
S.O. 2008- In exercise of the powers conferred by Section 3 of B
the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act,
1954 (44 of 1954), the Central Government hereby appoints the
Commissioner of Survey & Settlement Government of Andhra
Pradesh, Revenue Department, Hyderabad, is Settlement
Commissioner by or under the said Act, in respect of the land and
properties forming part of the Compensation Pool within the State C
of Andhra Pradesh.
S.O. 2009- In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section
(1) of Section 34 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and
Rehabilitation) Act, 1954 (44 of 1954), the Central Government
hereby directs that any powers exercisable by it under sub-section D
(4) of Section 24 and Section 33 of the said Act shall be exercisable
also by the Secretary, Revenue Department, Government of
Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad in addition to his own duties; in respect
of the lands and properties forming part of the Compensation Pool
within the State of Andhra Pradesh.” E
16. The Chief Settlement Commissioner delegated his powers in
terms of Section 34(2) of the Act to the Commissioner of Survey and
Settlement, Government of Andhra Pradesh vide separate notification
of the same date i.e. June 23, 1980, to hear appeals under Section 23,
revisions under Section 24 and transfer of cases under Section 28 of the F
Act.
17. The State issued a circular on November 6, 1981 consolidating
instructions dealing with evacuee property and in respect of transfer of
residuary work to the State Government. It was, inter alia, mentioned
as under: G
“Since the properties so declared by the Collectors as Evacuee
Properties were acquired by the Government of India under the
provisions of the Displaced Persons (Compensation &
Rehabilitation) Act, the Evacuee Properties have become acquired
H
1072 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2019] 15 S.C.R.
A properties of the Government of India and now stand transferred
to the State Government. Thus, no action need to take in respect
of acquired Evacuee Properties under this Act.
xx xx xx
This Act provides for appointment of various authorities in the
B Settlement organization, constitution of compensation pool payment
of a compensation and Rehabilitation grants to the displaced
persons and disposal pool properties. This Act also provides for
appeals, revisions, and other related matters, Rules under this Act
were issued by the G.O.I. as Displaced Persons (Compensation
C and Rehabilitation) Rules, 1955. It is under this Act and Rules,
action has to be taken for the settlement of verified claims of the
displaced persons and disposal of the pool properties now
transferred by the Government of India to the State Government
under this Act, the Tehsildar is the Managing Officer, who is mainly
concerned with the management and disposal of property. The
D Joint Collector is the Settlement Commissioner within his
jurisdiction. Revisional powers of Chief Settlement Commissioner
under Section 24 of the Act, stand delegated to the Commissioner
of Survey Settlement and Land Records and the Secretary to
Government in Revenue Department.
E The Claim of displaced person in respect of acquired properties
have almost been disposed of by the settlement organization before
the transfer of residuary work to the State Government. However,
some cases may be coming up which need be examined and
disposed under the provision of this Act and Rules framed
F thereunder.”
18. It is the Managing Officer who has to take such measures as
it considers necessary or expedient for the purpose of securing, managing
or disposing of any property entrusted to him. It may be mentioned that
the powers of Settlement Commissioner were vested with the
G Commissioner of Survey & Settlement of the Government of Andhra
Pradesh but such post of Survey & Settlement Commissioner was
abolished vide notification dated 21.01.1999 issued by the Government
of Andhra Pradesh, but no delegation was notified by the Central
Government in favour of CCLA.
H
RAMESH PARSRAM MALANI & ORS. v. 1073
STATE OF TELANGANA & ORS. [HEMANT GUPTA, J.]
19. Mr. Kapil Sibal, learned senior counsel for the appellant, argued A
that the land falling part of compensation pool is not transferred to the
State Government and that the land vests in the Central Government in
terms of the Act and can be utilized only for the purposes contemplated
in the Act by the Central Government. Admittedly, evacuee property
was available in the compensation pool and that, as against verified claim
B
of the appellant of 83.11 acres, only 40.4 acres was allotted to the father
of the appellant. Therefore, the appellant was rightly allotted balance
land of the verified claim by the CCLA on February 26, 2003. It is
argued that the High Court has made out a completely new case so as to
return a finding that the land vested with the State and that the CCLA
was not competent to allot land to the displaced person. It is also argued C
that the finding of the High Court that there was delay on the part of the
appellant to apply for allotment of land is a perverse finding as the
displaced person has a right for allotment of equivalent land left by him
in West Pakistan in the aftermath of partition. It is the statutory mandate
of the Central Government to make allotment to compensate displaced
D
person in view of the land left by such displaced person. The Act and
the Rules framed thereunder does not contemplate that once allotment
has been made, it exhausts the right of the displaced person to seek
further allotment. The displaced person has right to seek equivalent land
in India according to the verified claim in respect of land left in Pakistan.
To support such argument, reliance was placed on Rule 52 of the Rules E
where it contemplates that the Central Government may from time to
time, having regard to the availability of land, determine the maximum
area of land which may be allotted in the first instance to a person having
a verified claim. It is, thus, contended that the Rules contemplate multiple
allotments starting with the maximum area of the land which can be
F
allotted to the displaced person. Therefore, the allotment made in the
year 1954 by the Regional Settlement Commissioner will not exhaust
the claim of the displaced person for allotment of more land.
20. Mr. Sibal vehemently argued that the transfer of evacuee
property in Punjab was complete which is evident from the fact that
Punjab Government enacted Punjab Package Deal Properties (Disposal) G
Act, 19765, whereas, the communication dated May 24, 1980 does not
unequivocally transfer the evacuee land to the State of Andhra Pradesh
as was the situation in Punjab where evacuee land was transferred in
5
for short, ‘Punjab Act’
H
1074 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2019] 15 S.C.R.
A pursuance of letters dated June 3, 1961, March 5, 1962, March 23, 1963
and March 29, 1983 as mentioned in Section 2(1A) of the Punjab Act.
The Schedule attached to the Punjab Act, referring to letter dated June
3, 1961, provides for sale of 80000 standard acres of surplus land to the
Punjab Government at the rate of Rs.450/- per standard acre and
subsequent letters in respect of the payment of sale price. It is argued
B
that there is no outright transfer of land to the State of Andhra Pradesh
as in the case of surplus evacuee land in Punjab, therefore, the Central
Government retained control and management of land falling in
compensation pool and is entitled to allot the evacuee land which was
available for disposal to the displaced persons.
C 21. Mr. V. Giri, learned senior counsel for the respondents argued
that the appellant is a displaced person as defined in Section 2(b) of the
Act which includes the successors-in-interest of a displaced person. It
is contended that allotment was made in favour of the displaced person
in the year 1954 under the Act but such person never objected to a
D quasi-judicial order passed by the Regional Settlement Commissioner
under the Act. If the father of the appellant had any subsisting claim or
was not satisfied with the allotment of land, he had a right to object to
the allotment of a lesser area in appeal or revision. However, the father
of the appellant had not raised any grievance for more than 32 years
after the allotment of land till his death in the year 1988. It is contended
E that Rule 86 of the Rules is not applicable as the appellant is not raising
claim of allotment of land for the first time but asserting rights as
successor-in-interest of the deceased displaced person. Rule 86 comes
into play if the deceased displaced person could not submit his claim
during his life time which claim had to be filed on or before 30th June
F 1955 by the successor-in-interest in terms of Section 4 of the Act.
Therefore, the claim of the appellant is grossly delayed and not permissible
in terms of the provisions of the Act.
22. The first and the foremost question which requires to be
examined is as to whether the Central Government having transferred
G land to the State Government, could make allotment to the displaced
persons after May 24, 1980. Another question which arises is whether
CCLA, as a delegatee of the Central Government, could allot land though
he exercises the appellate powers, the power of allotment having been
vested with the Managing Officer as per Section 17 of the Act.
H
RAMESH PARSRAM MALANI & ORS. v. 1075
STATE OF TELANGANA & ORS. [HEMANT GUPTA, J.]
23. In the State of Andhra Pradesh, initially a letter was A
communicated on December 9, 1964 in response to the communication
from the Government of India regarding winding up of certain organization
of the Central Government and transfer of land to the State. However,
on May 24, 1980, the transfer of the land in compensation pool to the
State Government was completed when the circular contemplating
B
administration, management and disposal of remaining undisposed
evacuee property was issued. The circular provides that the Central
Government is to be given 15% of realised value of the properties after
sale and the balance sale amount was permitted to be retained by the
State Government. The transfer of land to the State Government is
complete w.e.f. June 1, 1980 subject to the conditions specified in the C
Circular dated May 23, 1980 such as payment of 15% of realised value
to the Central Government. Even if, such value is not paid by theState
Government, it is between the State Government and the Central
Government and not for any third party to make a grievance or dispute
the same.
D
24. All evacuee property in terms of notification issued by the
Central Government from time to time in terms of Section 12 of the Act
forms part of compensation pool under Section 14 of the Act. Section
16 of the Act empowers the Central Government to take such measures
as is considered necessary or expedient for the custody, management
and disposal of compensation pool. The Circular dated May 23, 1980 E
relates to administration, management and disposal of compensation
which is in terms of Section 16 of the Act. Section 16(2)(b) of the Act
empowers the Central Government to constitute such authority or
corporation for the purposes of sub-section (1) i.e. custody, management
and disposal of compensation pool. The Central Government is competent F
to constitute any authority or corporation for the same purpose.
Therefore, the transfer of land forming part of compensation pool to the
State Government has legislative sanction in terms of Section 16(2)(b)
of the Act.
25. Once the power of disposal has been conferred upon the State G
Government, and the manner of transfer stands crystalized in the circular,
the expression disposal of land by the State Government will include
transfer of title to the purchaser as the State Government could transfer
only that much right which the owner i.e. the Central Government had.
H
1076 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2019] 15 S.C.R.
A Therefore, disposal of land would mean transfer of land free from all
encumbrances by the State Government except to the extent of 15% of
the realised value as the share of contribution to the Central Government.
It is between the Central Government and the State Government to
regulate the transfer between them. The management and disposal of
land to the State Government is in terms of Section 16 of the Act.
B
26. It is wholly immaterial that the language of letter issued by the
Central Government to the Government of Punjab in the year 1961 is
different from the language of the letter issued to the Government of
Andhra Pradesh. The purpose of both the communications is transfer of
evacuee land to the State Governments to give effect to the provisions
C of the Act for consideration which was lumpsum in the State of Punjab
and on percentage basis in the State of Andhra Pradesh but the transfer
of land is complete as far as Central Government is concerned. The
Division Bench of Punjab and Haryana High Court in Ram Chander v.
The State of Punjab & Ors.6 observed that it is a financial arrangement
D between the two Governments by means of a letter, for which no
instrument of conveyance under Article 299 of the Constitution has been
drawn up. No such instrument is necessary as the transfer was made
under the Act and that the provisions of Article 299(1) would not be
applicable in a transaction of this nature. The Court held as under:
E “What is true of contracts between Government and individuals
also holds good in the case of the present contract which was
between the Central Government and the State of Punjab. The
details of the transaction of transfer had been settled between the
two Governments and these conditions set out in detail in the letter
of 1961 have been fulfilled and the transaction completed. It has
F not been disputed that the entire amount due to the Central
Government has been paid and it would be pointless in such a
situation to contend that the transfer, not having been executed in
the form envisaged in Article 299(1) becomes void and inoperative
altogether. As Mr. Justice Bose observed, the provisions of Article
G 299 (1) are meant to safeguard the interests of the Government
and there can be contracts which though not executed in the form
contemplated in Article 299 (1) are all the same binding on the
parties concerned. In our view, therefore, the package deal put
an end to the ownership of the Central Government of the
6
H (1968) 2 ILR P&H 651
RAMESH PARSRAM MALANI & ORS. v. 1077
STATE OF TELANGANA & ORS. [HEMANT GUPTA, J.]
properties comprised in the compensation pool and the State A
Government thereafter had full authority to dispose them.”
27. In Pala Singh (Deceased) by LRs v. Union of India &
Ors.7, this Court approved the order passed by the Punjab and Haryana
High Court in Ram Chander when it was held that since the excess
land allotted was the package deal property the same cannot be sold nor B
can it be allowed to be sold to the appellant by the Managing Officer
under the provisions of the Act as the delegatee of the Central
Government. The Court found that the order of the Officer is without
jurisdiction as the said property was no longer in the compensation pool
of the Central Government but it was a package property vested in the
State of Punjab. The Court held as under: C
“8. It appears from the letters dated 3-6-1961, 5-3-1962 as well
as 23-3-1963 issued from the office of Chief Settlement
Commissioner, Government of India that all surplus lands as well
as excess area in occupation of the allottees stood transferred to
the Punjab Government with effect from 1-4-1961 and the Punjab D
Government paid the price of the lands at the rate of Rs 445 per
standard acre to the Central Government by half yearly instalments
in 6 instalments within a period of three years commencing from
1-4-1961. So these lands are package deal properties vested in
the State of Punjab. It has been rightly held in the letters patent E
appeal confirming the order of the learned Single Judge in the
writ petition that since the excess land allotted to the appellant
was package deal property the same cannot be sold nor can it be
allowed to be sold to the petitioner-appellant by the Managing
Officer under the provisions of Displaced Persons (Compensation
and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954. So the order of the Managing Officer F
made in February 1962 is wholly without jurisdiction inasmuch as
the said property was no longer in the Compensation Pool of the
Central Government but it was a package deal property vested in
the State of Punjab. It has also been rightly held that the Chief
Settlement Commissioner is competent under Section 24 of the G
Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act 44 of
1954 to cancel the allotment of land in excess of the area the
petitioner is entitled to get under the provisions of the said Act.
This legal position has been settled by a decision of the Punjab
7
1987 (Supp) SCC 201 H
1078 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2019] 15 S.C.R.
A and Haryana High Court in the case of Ram Chander v. State of
Punjab [1968 CLJ (P & H) 668, 673] wherein it has been held:
“In our opinion, the package deal has the effect of transferring
the property from the Central Government to the Punjab State
and the logical result which flows from it is that the Settlement
B Authorities as delegates of the Central Government could not pass
any orders under the Act.”
xx xx xx
11. It is therefore clear and evident that the judgment of the
Punjab High Court rendered in the case of Ram Chander v. State
C of Punjab [1968 CLJ (P & H) 668, 673] insofar as it relates to
the validity of the package deal, has been upheld by this Court. So
there is no merit in this contention made on behalf of the appellant.”
28. The argument raised by Mr. Sibal that the Central Government
has notified the authorities to give effect to the provisions of the Act,
D therefore, the Central Government has retained control and administration
of the evacuee property, is misconceived. The land forming part of the
compensation pool was transferred to the State Government and the
officers of the State Government were entrusted with the functions of
Managing Officer or Settlement Commissioner, as the case may be.
E The allotment of all evacuee land is governed by the Act, therefore, the
officers competent to make allotment are the Managing Officers, whereas
power of appeal and revision are to be exercised by the Settlement
Commissioner or the Chief Settlement Commissioner. Such notifications
facilitate the exercise of powers under the Act by the officers of the
State Government in respect of land which stood transferred to the State
F Government. The CCLA in terms of the scheme of the Act has no
power to make allotment of land as he exercises the appellate or revisional
jurisdiction as a delegate of the Central Government. The power of
allotment is vested with the Managing Officer only in terms of Section
17 of the Act.
G 29. The allotment was made by the CCLA as a delegatee of the
Central Government. The Settlement Commissioner had no power to
make allotment of land falling in compensation pool either before May
23, 1980 or thereafter. Since the land stood transferred to the State
Government, the CCLA as a delegatee of the Central Government, could
H
RAMESH PARSRAM MALANI & ORS. v. 1079
STATE OF TELANGANA & ORS. [HEMANT GUPTA, J.]
not deal with the land forming part of compensation pool which stood A
transferred to the State Government.
30. On this ground alone, the allotment made in favour of the
appellant on February 26, 2003 cannot be sustained in view of the Division
Bench judgment of Punjab and Haryana High Court in Ram Chander,
as approved by this Court in Pala Singh. We find that the Central B
Government or its delegatee could not allot land after the same was
transferred to the State as a part of the package deal.
31. However, we are unable to agree with the High Court that
transfer of land to the State Government takes such transferred land out
of compensation pool. The land transferred to the State Government C
continues to be part of compensation pool but it is required to be disposed
of by the Officers of the State who have been conferred the powers of
the Managing Officer or of the Settlement Commissioner for the
settlement of the displaced persons alone. It is only after the displaced
persons are settled, the State Government may utilize the land for other
purposes. D
32. We do not find any merit in the argument that there is no time
limit for allotment of land to make good the verified claim. Rule 86 of
the Rules will come into play if the displaced person has not raised any
claim within the time period prescribed under Section 4 of the Act i.e.
June 30, 1955 but once a claim has been filed by a displaced person, the E
successor-in-interest steps into his shoes and was required to raise his
grievance in respect of allotment of lesser area or any other grievance
arising out of a quasi-judicial order passed by the Regional Settlement
Commissioner in the manner prescribed by the Act. Since the
predecessor-in-interest of the appellant has not raised any grievance F
during his life time and for more than 13 years after his death by the
appellant, therefore, the appellant cannot be permitted to agitate the issues
which have attained finality. Rule 86 of the Rules is not a perennial
source of allotment by the successor-in-interest but operates in respect
of a successor-in-interest by a displaced person who has not filed claim
during his life time of a displaced person before June 30, 1955. The G
successor-in-interest is also required to file claim before the date fixed
by Section 4 of the Act.
33. The argument that the appellant is entitled to equivalent land
as is the verified claim is untenable. The verified claim is verification of
H
1080 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2019] 15 S.C.R.
A the claim of the displaced person in respect of his property in West
Pakistan. The entitlement of allotment out of compensation pool is
contained in Rule 51 of the Rules. Rule 51 of the Rules provides for the
land which is to be allotted in lieu of area abandoned. In respect of 83
acres of area abandoned, the entitlement is 45.8¾ acres as per the
Appendix XIV. Therefore, the father of the appellant could at best
B
claim the remaining 4 acres but had to raise a claim by seeking his
remedy against the order passed by the Regional Settlement
Commissioner on April 29, 1954 or March 24, 1956. Rule 51 of the
Rules will be applicable if the land is not available and the competent
authority decides to allot land in bits and parts. The order of allotment
C does not show that the allotting authority reserved any right for allotment
of the remaining land, therefore, the claim of the appellant stood satisfied
in its entirety when the allotment was made under the Act in the year
1954.
34. In somewhat similar circumstances, the Division Bench of
D Punjab and Haryana High Court in Chameli Devi & Ors. v. Union of
India & Ors.8 has dismissed the claim on behalf of successor-in-interest
after the death of displaced person on May 10, 1989. The displaced
person has never disputed any claim regarding land allotted to him. It is
after his death, the appellant met the Revenue Minister in 1994, who set
the allotment process in motion. In the aforesaid case, the Division
E Bench of the High Court held as under:
“16. The facts of this case show that application was filed by
Harbans Lal Arora on 15.03.1994, which was obviously highly
belated. Moreover, such an application could have been filed only
by a person, who was a holder of a “verified claim”, which
F according to the definition means a person, whose claim made
under the East Punjab Refugees (Registration of Land Claims)
Act, 1948, had remained un-satisfied. Had this been the case Jeta
Ram would not have remained quiet during his life time. This in
itself suggests that the application made by Harbans Lal Arora
G lacked bonafide. Further, such an application was to be made to
the Settlement Officer and was to be examined by the Settlement
Commissioner, who, after an inquiry made in prescribed manner
could determine the amount of compensation, if at all, payable.
The application, if made by an heir of the displaced person, required
8
H CWP No. 14772 of 2000 decided on November 14, 2017
RAMESH PARSRAM MALANI & ORS. v. 1081
STATE OF TELANGANA & ORS. [HEMANT GUPTA, J.]
additional documents to be filed alongwith it to enable the A
concerned official to make a determination regarding his status.
The facts of this case, however, reveal that an application was
directly made to the then Revenue Minister and on his instructions/
directions, the Tehsildar (Sales)-cum-Managing Officer passed
orders of additional allotment. The exercise of classification of
B
land abandoned in West Pakistan, valuation thereof and valuation
of land allotted in India was done by the said Managing Officer,
whereas according to the 1954 Act, such power is vested in the
Settlement Commissioner. The various orders of allotment are
thus, illegal having been passed by officers who were not vested
with jurisdiction to do so. C
xx xx xx
19. Thus, it stands established on record that the claim of Jeta
Ram stood satisfied during his life time. There was no “verified
claim” of him left to be satisfied and the entire exercise initiated
by his son through letter dated 15.03.1994 was with fraudulent D
intentions. Officials/officers passed allotment orders with a view
to benefit Harbans Lal Arora, even though, they did not have the
jurisdiction to do so under the law. Even the procedure prescribed
by law was short-circuited so that instant gratification could be
achieved. E
xx xx xx
21. Thus, it is unequivocally held that Harbans Lal Arora, as heir
of Jeta Ram, was not entitled to any additional allotment and his
belated claim was totally false, fabricated and arose out of an
ulterior motive.” F
35. Another argument was raised that the expression ‘package
deal’ is not the expression used in the communication dated May 24,
1980 though such expression was used in the communication dated March
5, 1962 by the Central Government and/or in the communication dated
March 23, 1963 when communicating with Punjab Government. We G
find that the lack of use of expression ‘package deal’ will not change the
nature of transfer which is in terms of Section 16 of the Act with the
date of transfer specified as June 1, 1980 in terms of Rule 34 of the
Rules. The transfer of land forming part of compensation pool is
H
1082 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2019] 15 S.C.R.
A contemplated by Section 16 of the Act, when it provides that for the
custody, management and disposal of the compensation pool, the Central
Government constitute such authority or corporation. Thus, if the Central
Government could transfer land forming part of the compensation pool
to a corporation, then it could very well transfer land to a State
Government.
B
36. The Punjab Act is to regulate transfer of land for allotment to
displaced persons after vesting of surplus land with the State Government
of Punjab. Such Act is only to regulate and provide for procedure for
allotment of surplus evacuee land.
C 37. In fact, the Act was repealed by the Displaced Persons Claims
and Other Laws Repeal Act, 2005. One of the objects of the Repeal
Act is as under:
“2. The major works of claims compensation and rehabilitation
more or less had been completed by the year end of 1970.
D Subsequently, the erstwhile Ministry of Labour and Rehabilitation
(Department of Rehabilitation) which was responsible for the
aforesaid rehabilitation work also concluded that only a limited
number of acquired evacuee urban and agricultural lands or
properties had remained to be disposed of and the expenditure
which was being incurred for the purpose was out of proportion
E to the volume of work and the receipts from their disposal…
3. Subsequent to the transfer of the ownership of the Central
Government on the undisposed evacuee properties to the State
Governments concerned, it was reported by the State Governments
that a large number of claims under the aforesaid Acts’ are being
F continued to be filed in the various courts under the aforesaid
Acts. It has further been brought to the notice of the Central
Government that a number of persons unconnected with the
claimants posing as their legal heirs are presenting repeated
demands for lands. Examinations have revealed that in most of
G such cases the claimants under the temptation to grab more lands,
have managed to obtain bogus and excess allotments. It therefore
had become difficult for the State Governments to retrieve the
Government lands and properties worth crores of rupees from
the hands of unscrupulous persons.”
H
RAMESH PARSRAM MALANI & ORS. v. 1083
STATE OF TELANGANA & ORS. [HEMANT GUPTA, J.]
38. The Government of India clarified on September 22, 2008 A
that the proceedings pending under the Act before the repeal have to be
decided under the relevant laws. It was communicated as under:
“3. The matter has, therefore, been considered in detail by the
Ministry of Home Affairs, in consultation with the Ministry of
Law & Justice and after ascertaining the ground situation from B
some of the State Governments/UTs concerned. Pursuant thereto,
and in order to remove ambiguity and doubts which appear to
have been created, it is clarified that the enactment of the displaced
persons claims and other laws repeal Act 2005 would not affect
disposal of the following categories of cases and the State
Government/UTs may, therefore, take action as appropriate, to C
settle them under the relevant State Laws or the General Clauses
Act:
3.1. Unsatisfied verified claims filed under the Displaced Persons
(Claims) Act, 1950 in which right has accrued or has been acquired
and which were pending as on 06.09.2005, the date on which the D
Displaced Persons (Compensation & Rehabilitation) Act, 1954
and other related Acts were repealed.
xx xx xx
5. As regards revival of the authorities prescribed under the E
repealed Acts, it is clarified that since the subject stands transferred
to the State Governments, action for settlement of pending matters,
can be taken by the authorities prescribed under any state laws
that may have been enacted or in any other manner as considered
appropriate and it may not be necessary to revive the authorities
prescribed under the repealed acts.” F
39. It is, thereafter, another communication was addressed by the
Government of India on November 17, 2016 subsequent to an order
passed by this Court in Union of India v. International Sindhi
Panchayats & Ors.9 on April 28, 2014 that the cases and proceedings
which were pending on the date of repeal of the Act will be decided in G
terms of the provisions of the Act. It was communicated as under:
“2. Considering the above judgment passed by the Hon’ble
Supreme Court on the issue, this Ministry, in consultation with
9
Civil Appeal No.6079 of 2010
H
1084 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2019] 15 S.C.R.
A Ministry of Law & Justice has decided to request all the State
Governments/UTs to continue to decide the pending cases and
proceedings which were pending on the date of the repeal of the
said Acts, and deal with the residuary works of administration,
management and disposal of acquired evacuee properties (forming
part of Compensation Pool) transferred to the State Governments/
B
UTs, under the un-repealed Displaced Persons (Compensation &
Rehabilitation) Act, 1954 and other related Acts as per the
provisions of Section 6 of the General Clauses Act, 1897.”
40. Mr. Sibal has strongly relied upon the order passed by this
Court in International Sindhi Panchayats. The said order is that the
C cases and proceedings pending on the date of repeal shall be decided
under the provisions of the Act. The said order is not helpful to the issue
raised in respect of the right of the Central Government for allotment of
land after the same was transferred to State of Andhra Pradesh on May
24, 1980 w.e.f. June 1, 1980.
D 41. In view of the above, we do not find any merit in the present
appeal. Consequently, appeal is dismissed.
Ankit Gyan Appeal dismissed.
E
F
G
H
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