CHAND KUMAR KAPUR Vs. CHIEF SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The only question which arises for consideration of this Court in this appeal by way of special leave under Article 136 of the Constitution against the judgment of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Letters Patent Appeal is as to whether the Managing Officer operating under the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954 ('1954 Act' for short), could cancel the allotment made in favour of the appellant under the East Punjab Administration of Evacuee Property Act, 1947 ('Punjab Act' for short) and schemes framed thereunder.

(2.) Appellant, an evacuee from West Pakistan owned agricultural land in District Lyallpur. As a displaced person he was allotted a little more than six standard acres of land in village Kotla, Tehsil Jullundur in Punjab under the quasi-permanent scheme. In 1952 the Director of Rehabilitation submitted a proposal to the Financial Commissioner, Relief and Rehabilitation-cum-Custodian that premium cut of 5 villages, viz., Sufi Pind, Dhin. Barring, Khusropur and Alladinpur be enhanced from 18.3/4% to 50% as similarly situated villages near Jullundur city carried a cut of 50%. This proposal also suggested that in two other neighbouring villages viz., Sheikhpind 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 Municipal area and had semiurban character. This proposal was accepted by the Commissioner as also by the Governor of the State before 2nd July 1952 when Rule 14 (6) of the Evacuee Property (Central) Rules, 1950 was amended and in respect of quasi-permanent allottees cancellation was permitted only on grounds set out in Rule 14 (6). The allottees of Sheikh Pind and Kotla villages challenged the orders implementing the policy decision of cut of 50% before the hierarchy of rehabilitation authorities and moved the High Court by filing a writ petition. When that writ petition was dismissed, special leave was obtained from this Court and the Court found that after coming into force of the 1954 Act and the Notification made on March 24, 1955, under Section 12 of the Act, the lands already allotted to displaced persons ceased to be evacuee property and had become part of the pool created under the 1954 Act. Power was not available to be exercised under the 1950 Act.

(3.) Subsequently steps were taken to enforce the cut and a writ petition was moved before the High Court. When the single Judge dismissed the petition, an appeal was taken to the Division Bench and four contentions were advanced on behalf of the appellant and each one was negatived and the appeal was dismissed. It may be stated that that appeal was heard along with 19 others raising common question of fact and law. Against this confirming decision of the Division Bench, leave having been obtained from this Court, the present appeal has been filed.