NARAIN DASS Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This judgment will dispose of Writ Petition, Nos. 82, 83, 84, 1238 and 3670 of 1975. Since common question of law has been raised in these petitions, therefore they are being disposed of by this common judgment.

(2.) The petitioner in all the above-mentioned writ petitions are in possession of the evacuee property as unauthorised occupants. Under the provisions of subsections (4) and (5) of Section 19 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), the Central Government has the power to lay down principles of assessment of rent and damages on which the Managing Officer may assess the rent or damages, as the case may be, in respect of evacuee property in occupation of the persons from whom the said rent or damages, as the case may be, have to he recovered. Sub-section (4) of Section 19 of the Act deals with cases where the person concerned is in possession by way of allotment or of lease of the evacuee property to which he is subsequently not found to be entitled., whereas sub-section (5) of this section deals with the cases where the evacuee property is in unauthorised possession of the person concerned. However, before passing an order either under sub-section (4) or sub-section (5) of this section, the person against whom the order is to be passed, has to be provided a reasonable opportunity of being heard. This is clear from the proviso to subsection (4) and so also from the proviso to sub-section (5). Under Section 34 of the Act, the Central Government by notification In the official Gazette may direct that any power exercisable by it under this Act shall in such circumstances and under such conditions, if any, as may be specified in the direction, be exercisable also by the State Government or by the persons mentioned under the said section. In exercise of the powers conferred by subsection (1) of S. 34 of the Act, the Central Government vide notification dated 18th May, 1971 published in the Gazette of India, Part II, Section 3(ii), dated 10th July, 1971, delegated its powers under sub-sections (4) and (5) of S. 19 of the Act, to the State of Haryana, copy of which is Annexure P. 1 with CWP No. 3670, of 1975, for the purpose of specifying the principles of assessment of rent and damages in respect of the occupation partly or entirely without title or authority of agricultural land situated in rural and urban areas In the State of Haryana. The Haryana State Government while exercising the delegated powers of the Central Government referred to above, issued a notification copy of which is Annexure P. 2. with CWP No. 367O of 1975, thus laying down the principle as follows:-- (i) Rural Evacuee Agricultural Lands: Rent shall be assessed and recovered at 20 times the land revenue subject to a minimum of. Rs. 40/- per acre per harvest, whichever is higher. (ii) Urban Evacuee Agricultural Lands: Rent shall be assessed and recovered at 100 times the land revenue or Rupees 400/- per acre per harvest, whichever is higher.

(3.) In pursuance of the said notification, the Tehsildar Panipat, acting as Managing Officer, issued demand against the petitioners for various amounts mentioned in the demand notices. The petitioners in these writ petitions, have challenged the notification of the Haryana Government, copy of which is Annexure P. 2 with C. W. P. No. 3670 of 1975, and consequential demand notices issued to the petitioners by the Managing Officer. It is contended that the notification of the Haryana Government has not laid down the principle for assessment of the rent/damages as postulated in sub-sections (4) and (5) of the Act and that the rent/damages have been fixed arbitrarily whereby the whole income accruing to the petitioners from the property in dispute has been expropriated. It is claimed that the said notification infringes the fundamental rights of the petitioners as contained in Articles 14 and 19(1)(f) of the Constitution of India.