LAWS(SC)-1976-5-1

GOPI CHAND DHAWAN AND Vs. DEPUTY SECRETARY PUNJAB

Decided On May 04, 1976
GOPI CHAND DHAWAN Appellant
V/S
DEPUTY SECRETARY,PUNJAB Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two appeals by special leave arise out of proceedings under the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954. The appellant in each case is a displaced person from West Pakistan and was allotted a house in Sukhera Basti, Abohar, in 1955, and they have been in possession of their respective houses since then. In 1955 they were given proprietary rights in the houses in their occupation. By an order dated May 10, 1958 the Additional Financial Commissioner acting as Chief Settlement Commissioner cancelled the allotment of evacuee houses in village Sukhera Basti and certain other villages on the ground of irregularities in the allotment in a large number of cases. Shri R. S. Grewal, who was the Chief Settlement Commissioner, observed in his order:

(2.) In May 1961 th Deputy Secretary to the Government of Punjab with delegated powers of Chief Settlement Commissioner directed the Managing Officer to make fresh allotment of evacuee houses in village Sukhera Basti, Pursuant to this direction the house allotted to the appellant in C. A. 730 of 1968 was allotted to the third respondent and the house allotted to the appellant in C. A. 997 of 1968 was allotted to respondents 3 to 5 of their respective appeals. The appellants moved the High Court under articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution against the cancellation of their allotments. The learned single Judge who heard these applications dismissed the same and on appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent the Division Bench affirmed the order of dismissal.

(3.) In the course of hearing of the appeals, counsel for the appellants raised a point as to the scope of the proviso to Rule 2 (h) of the Displaced persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Rules, 1955. Rule 2 (h) defines 'urban area'. The question suggested itself from the fact that in February, 1961 Sukhera Basti area was included in the Municipal limits of Abohar. Presumably, the point was raised in an attempt to prove that the allotment of the houses to the respondents after that date was invalid. We think that the point, apart from its merits, does not really arise for consideration in these appeals in which the only question is whether the allotments in favour of the appellants were valid. This is a question which can be answered only by testing the allotments in favour of the appellants in the light of the directions given by Shri Grewal and Shri Johnson. If the allotments made in 1951 and sanads granted in 1955 are found to be valid, the inclusion of Sukhera Basti in the municipal limits of Abohar in 1961 would be of no relevance, and if they are invalid, then this fact is of no concern of the appellants. It does not appear, however, that before the houses allotted to the appellants were reallotted to the appellants were reallotted to the respondents, the directions contained in the orders made by Shri Grewal and Shri Johnson on 10-5-1958 and 21-11-1958 respectively were carried out. The High Court also does not appear to have been alive to this aspect of the matter. In these circumstances we think that in the interest of justice these two cases should go back to the Managing Officer having jurisdiction to deal with these cases to consider the validity of the allotment of the two houses forming the subject-matter of these two appeals, in accordance with the directions contained in the orders dated May 10, 1958 and November 21, 1958 passed respectively by Shri Grewal, Chief Settlement Commissioner, and Shri Johnson, Joint Secretary to the Government of India. We order accordingly. Both these appeals are therefore allowed and the order of the Division Bench and also of the learned single Judge of the High Court are set aside. There will be no order as to costs.