KIRPAL SINGH Vs. THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE circumstances in which the validity and constitutionality of Section 20 -B of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act 44 of 1954 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) as amended by the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Amendment Act 2 of 1960, has been questioned before us, have been enumerated in substantial detail in my order of reference, dated November 22, 1965, which may be read as part of this judgment. To recapitulate very briefly, the Petitioner is aggrieved by an order of the Central Government, dated March 4, 1963 (passed without affording any opportunity to the Petitioner of being heard), declining to restore to the Petitioner, the land belonging to him consequent on his redeeming the same, in pursuance of a valid and binding order of the appellate officer under the Evacuee Interest (Separation) Act (64 of 1951), on the ground that the land had originally been allotted to Wadhawa Singh, Respondent No. 5, a displaced person, by the Custodian, and had subsequently been transferred to him under the Act and directing payment of cash compensation to the Petitioner, on the ground that no alternative land is available in the village of the Petitioner. The Petitioner had admittedly filed written objections against the application of the Custodian under Section 20 -B to give compensation to the Petitioner instead of implementing the order of the appellate authority under the Separation Act, by way of restoration of the original holding to him. It is also not disputed that the impugned order of the Central Government shows that those objections were not considered at all and that the Petitioner was not allowed any opportunity even otherwise, of being heard in support of them.

(2.) NO return to the rule issued in this case, had been filed by any of the Respondents, and Respondents Nos. 1 to 4 had not even appeared before me in Single Bench to contest this petition. Respondent No. 5 (Wadhawa Singh) had contested the petition in Single Bench, but has not appeared before us in the Division Bench. In the course of my order of reference, I had directed Respondent No. 1 (the Central Government) to produce the original order said to have been passed by it under Section 20 -B of the Act, on the application of the Custodian (as no copy of the order had been given to the Petitioner in spite of his written requests and none had been produced by Respondent No. 5) and had also directed notice of this case being issued to the Attorney General for India under Order 27 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Copy of the order of the Central Government, dated March 4, 1963, has been placed on the record, in pursuance of the said direction as annexure 'C' to the written statement of Respondent No. 4 (the Custodian Evacuee Property. Punjab. Jullundur). dated August 11, 1966.

(3.) ONE (Paragraph 3) of the objects, which led the Parliament to introduce Section 20 -B in the principal Act by Section 6 of the amending Act 2 of 1960. has been described in the statement of objects and reasons published in the Gazette of India, Extraordinary, Part II, Section 1, in connection with the introduction of the Bill (which on being passed became the amending Act), dated December 15. 1959. in the following words: