AMAR SINGH v. CUSTODIAN, EVACUEE PROPERTY, PUNJAB
Citation: [1957] 1 S.C.R. 801; 1957 INSC 28
Court: Supreme Court of India
Bench: NATWARLAL HARILAL BHAGWATI , B. JAGANNADHADAS, SYED JAFFER IMAM, P. GOVINDA MENON, J.L. KAPUR
Judgment date:
Case summary
1957 INSC 28. Supreme Court of India judgment dated 1957-03-29. AMAR SINGH v. CUSTODIAN, EVACUEE PROPERTY, PUNJAB. Read the judgment and case details on...
Judgment text
S. C. R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 801 AMAR SINGH v. CUSTODIAN, EVACUEE PROPERTY, PUNJAB (BHAGWATI, jAGANNADHADAs, jAFER IMAM, GovINDA · MENON and ]. L. KAPUR JJ. ) Evacuee property-Allotment-Displaced land-holders-Quasi" permanent allotment-Cancellation-Violation of Fundamental Rights-Constitution of India, Arts. 19(1)(f), 31(1), 31(2)-Administration ef Ev! lcuee Property Act, 1950 (XXXI of 1950). The petitioners, who were displaced persons from Pakistan owning land therein, were also co_-sharers in a joint khata owned by some evacuees in a suburban village in East Punjab. On their displacement they were in the first instance temporarily allotted agricultural land in that village. Subsequently, a. s a result of the readjustment of allotments of the suburban land amongst the various groups who had quasi-permanent allotments therein, which had to be carried out according to certain rules and instructions, the allotments of the petitioners were cancelled.
The case of the petitioners was that the allotment to them was on a quasi-permanent basis and that, therefore, they had acquired certain rights in the land which constituted property, and they contended that the order cancelling the allotment was in violation of their fundamental rights to property under Arts. 19(1)(f), 31 (1) and 31 (2) of the Constitution of India. Though the petitioners were allottees of agricultural land on the basis of a quasi-permanent allotment it was admitted that they were not able to get a sanad under the rules for the lands originally allotted to them, when only they could obtain permanent property in the land. It was not disputed that the cancellation of the allotment was under the purported exercise of powers under the provisions of the Administration of Evacuee Property Act, 1950, and the rules framed thereunder taken with some executive instructions.
Held, that the interest of a quao;i-permanent allottee does not constitute 'property' within the meaning of Arts. 19(1)(f), 31(1) or 31 (2) of the Constitution of India, and accordingly the orders cancelling the allotments could not amount to violation of fundamental rights under those Articles. The basic features of the interest of a quasi-permanent allottee ·are that the ultimate ownership of the land is still recognised to be that of the evacuee and the allotment itself is l~ble to resumpt! o? or ~ancellation with reference to the exigencies of the adm1mstration of evacuee law. The interest so "recognised is, in its essential concept, provisional though with a view to stabilisation and ultimate permanence. An interest in land owned by another in such a situation cannot be fitted into any concept of property in itself. . Julius v. Lord Bishop of Oxford, (188o) 5 A. C. 214, distin-guished. Property in order that it may fall within the scope of A1t.
19( 1)(f) must be capable of being the subject matter of "acquisition and disposal". But tJ:ie interest of a quasi-permanent allottee arises by statutory grant to a person of a specified class and is not capable of being acquired by an ordinary citizen in any of the normal modes. Nor is it capable of b6ng disposed of by the allottee himself by way of sale, mortgage, gift or will. Con-sequently, Art. 19(1)(f) cannot apply to the case. In order that Art . 31 ( 1) may apply it is not enough that there is deprivation, but such deprivation must be \\-·ithout the authority of law. In the present case the quasi-permanent allotments of the petitioners were cancelled in enforcement of a right of resumption or cancellation which is an incident of such property, and hence the Article has not been infringed. The interest of a quasi-permanent allottee cannot ho brought within the scope of Art. 31(2) as it stood prior to the an1endment. The words "taking possession" or "acquisition" there are in~.
ppro priate in respect of the rights which constitute quasi-permanent tt"nurc. In vie\v of the word "deemrd" occurring in Art. 31 (2A) it appears likely that the amendment to Art. 31(2) was inlenrled to be retrospective, but even then the amended Article taken w~th Art. 31 (2A) is equally inapplicable as it contemplates acquisition or requisitioning (and taking possession) as a result of transfer of the ownership or of the right to possession. Suraj Parkash Kapur v. The State of Pu,Yab, (1957) LIX P. L. R. 103, in so far as it purported to t:ecide that the interest in the land allotted to a quasi-permanent allottee constitutes "property" which attracts the protection of fundamental rights under the Constitution, is disapproved.
Thc·ugh a quasi-permanent allotm~nt does not carry with it a fundamental right to property under tl:e Constitution, the rights of the allottee as recognised in the statutory rules are important and constitute the essential basis of a satisfactory rehabilitation and settlement of displaced land-holders. Until such time as the land-holders obtain sanads to the lands, these rights are entitled to zealous protection of the constituted authorities according to administrative rules and instructions binding on them and of the courts by appropriate proceed~ngs where there is uswpation of jurisdiction or abuse of exercise of statuto1 y po\\o·ers. ORIGINAL juRISDICTION : Petition No. 351 of 1954. Petition under Article 32 of the Constitution for the t>nforcement of fundamental rights. N. S. Bindra, Udhai Bhan Choudhury and Gopal Singh, for the petitioners. Amar Singh S. L. Pandhi and K. L. Mehta, for the Intervener. CustodU. :; Evacwe Prop111Y, Punjab. 1957, March 29.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by JagannmDwdasJ. JAGANNADHADAS J. -This is an application under Art. 32 of the Constitution by the petitioners, Amar Singh and four others, in the following circumstances. All these five are displaced persons who owned land in the non-suburban village of Chak. No. 159-RB, Tahsil Jaranwala, District Lyallpur in Pakistan. They were also co-sharers in a joint khata owned by some evacuees in village Sultanwind, a suburb of Amritsar in East Punjab. On their displacement, they were in the first instance temporarily allotted agricultural land in Sultanwind. Having regard to their original position in the village, they were allotted in the year 1949 a total area of 38 standard acres and 13 units of agricultural land therein. This allotment had to be disturbed under the following circumstances.
The Director-General of Relief and Rehabilitation (Additional Custodian) directed by an order dated January 7, 1950, that out of the 1,263 standard acres and 1£ units of suburban land of Amritsar, 142 standard acres and 5 units were to be allotted to allottees of Provincial Gardens. This necessitated readjustment of allotments of the suburban land of Sultanwind amongst the various groups who had quasi-permanent allotment therein. As a result of this readjustment which had to be carried out according to certain rules and instructions the allotment of these five petitioners (as also of some others) was proposed for cancellation by the order of the Deputy Custodian, Amritsar, dated July 31, 1951. This proposal was approved by the Custodian (Financial Commissioner, Relief and Rehabi- 1 litation) on February 6, 1952, and the allotment was cancelled. The proposal and the order of cancellation are said to have been passed without notice to the petitioners.
Being aggrieved thereby they moved the Custodian-General of Evacuee Property for revision thereof under s. 27 of the Administration of Evacuee Property Act, 1950 (XXXI of 1950). This was dealt with by the Deputy Custodian-Genera] who dismissed the same by a fairly elaborate order dated May 1, 1954, after hearing the parties. The petitioners have come up to this Court by this application under Art. 32 of the Constitution. The case of the petitioners is that the allotment to them was on quasi-permanent basis and that, therefore, they have acquired certain rights in the lands which constitute 'property'. They urge that the order of the Custodian cancelling the allotment and that of the Deputy Custodian-General affirming the same are in violation of their fundamental rights to property under Arts. 19(1)(f), 31(1) and 31(2) of the Constitution. They accordingly contend that they are entitled to have these orders quashed and their rights to property declared and protected.
That the petitioners are allottees of agricultural land on the basis of what has come to be known as quasi-permanent allotment is not disputed. It is also not disputed that cancellation thereof was under the purported exercise of powers vested in the Custodian under certain provisions of the Administration of Evacuee Property Act, 1950 (XXXI of 1950) and the rules framed thereunder taken with some executive instructions. It may be mentioned that the term "quasi-permanent allotment" appears to be a term which has come into vogue in later statutory rules and has at no time been specifica! Iy defined, though it appears to be now fairly well-understood.
The two substantial questions that arise, therefore, for consideration are ( 1) whether the rights of a quasi-permanent allot tee constitute property within the meaning of the articles above referred to, and (2) whether the orders of the Custodian and Deputy Custodian-General cancelling the quasi-permanent allotment amount to violation of fundamental rights contemplated by the above articles. Both these questions require a review of the Evac. uee Property Law in so far as it relates to the allotment of agricultural lands of the evacuees to displaced ! and-holders and an appreciation of the background of the circumstances that necessitated it. The Declaration of Independence and the partition of India into Pakistan and India on August r 5, r 94 7, was accompanied by mass migrations of Non-Muslims from Custodian, West Punjab to East Punjab and of Muslims from East Punjab to West Punjab. These mass migrations were on a stupendous scale.
About five million persons are said to have moved from each side to the other. This was done in a state of panic generated by communal riots. Migrants from West Punjab reached East Punjab almost destitute. This unprecedented situation brought in its train gigantic problems of administration relating to rehabilitation and resettlement of these persons. One of such problems was that relating to agricultural immovable property left on either side by the migrants. For purposes of convenience persons who crossed over from East Punjab to '\'est Punjab are referred to as evacuees and persons who came over from West Punjab to East Punjab are referred to as displaced persons. The displaced persons are said to have left in Pakistan lands of the extent of about 67 l,akh acres. The evacuees seem to have left in East Punjab and Pepsu, lands of the extent of about 47 lakh acre'. This meant a deficit of over 20 lakh acres for resettlement.
It would appear that in the earlier stages there were attempts to settle the question by way of mutual exchanges either in iPdividually or at the govermental level and by means of inter-dominion conferences bet- . ween India and Pakistan. But for one reason or other, these attempts appear to have failed. The various :. teps and administrative measures taken to settle the displaced agricultural population who came over from West Punjab, on the hurriedly abandoned lands of the evacuees from East Punjab, are to be found described in the Land Resettlement Manual by Shri Tarlok Singh who was the Director-General of Relief and Rehabilitation (hereinfter referred to as the Resettlement Manual). In Dunichand Hakim v. Deputy Commissioner (Deputy Custodian, Evacuee Property), K arnal (1 ), this book has been referred to by this Court as having the stamp of authority. It can be usefully referred to not (t) [1954] S. C. R. 578.
[ 957 necessarily as an authority for every statement of fact or law contained therein but as a guide to appreciate the background of the problems which the administration had to face in that unprecedented situation, how the administration attempted to solve the same, what were the rules and practice which the administration normally followed and considered binding on itself, and what ideas inspired the course of legislation in this behalf. It appears therefrom that within about a month after the partition of India, the Government had to take an emergency decision to allot evacuee lands to groups of displaced persons on temporary basis. But this was found not to satisfy the displaced landholders. There was insistent pressure from them for such allotment as would enable them to settle on the lands of the evacuees on a permanent basis.
This led to the abandonment of the policy of temporary allotments and the introduction of a system of allotment which came to be known as quasi-permanent allotment. This policy was announced by the Government of East Punjab in its Press Communique date. cl February 7, 1948, which is reproduced at pages 28 and 29 of the Resettlement Manual. The following extract therefrom is instructive : "The East Punjab Government propose to replace the present system of temporary allotments of evacuee lands by a new system of allotments which will take account of the holdings of evacuees in ',yest Punjab. The new allotments will not confer rights of ownership or permanent occupancy, but the possession of allotted will be maintained. Claims of allottees will be dealt with in accordance with decisions reached eventually regarding the treatment of evacuee property.
In the new scheme of allotments, land will be allotted only to those who, in West Punjab, were owners, occupancy tenants under the Punjab Tenancy Act, and tenants under the Colonization of Government Lands Act and to certain other classes of grantees and holders of land in West Punjab to be specified by Government. It is proposed to give to small holders allotments of equivalent areas, while in the case of larger holders there will be graded cuts. The definition of the "Small Holders" and the details of the graded cuts will be determined when detailed information regarding the available areas in East Punjab and the Custodian, East Punjab States, the areas held by the population to be settled in East Punjab and the East Punjab States, and other relevant information becomes available. It is intended to complete the new system of allotments in the East Punjab and the East Punjab States, not later than the 31st May, 1948.
Government are, however, anxious to introduce the new scheme as early as may 'be feasible and steps to this end will be taken at once. Arrangements for collecting complete information regarding the land available for allotment in East Punjab and the East Punjab States and the land abandoned by individual evacuees will be taken in hand without delay and it is hoped also to make arrangements on a reciprocal basis to secure information from records ofrights in \'\'est Punjab. To ensure accurate information an Ordinance will shortly be promulgated prescribing punishment for false information regarding claims to land and action by way of forfeiture and otherwise in respect of allotments taken on false information. Claims to land will be invited on a form to be prescribed by Government.
Until the new system of allotments can be introduced, the present system of allotments will continue and allotments made to the present holders will be maintained subject to a complete scrutiny of ex1stmg allotments, cancellation of unauthorised and excessive allotments, dispossession from illicit occupation and such other adjustments as may be necessary including adjustments in the unit of allotment decided upon by Government. " To facilitate the process of resettling the displaced persons on evacuated land on this new basis of allotment various steps became necessary. They are roughly the following. 1. Registration and verification of land claims. 2. Assessment and valuation of such claims. (I 95 7} 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 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 administrati\"elv determined. The basic 'idea which inspired and regulated these measures was that the displaced landholder is to be allotted (subject to graded cuts) such lal! ds out of the evacuee agricultural Lrnd which, in its extent, quality and other rdc1·ant features, bear some reasonable relation and correspondence to the lands left by him in \\'est Punjab. All these steps involved very elaborate administrati1·e measures as indicated above. \ \' e are concerned in this context to trace the lcg;islation which brought about these steps and to examine whether and to what extent such legislation recognised property rights in the displaced land-holders.
But before tracing the legislative measures which brought about the quasi-permanent allotments of evacuee lands in favour of displaced land-holders from \\'est Punjab, it will be convenient to have a brief survey of the present Jaw in its aprlication to administration of evacuee property of all kinds in general with the history of such of the provisions therein as arc relevant for. our purpose and then to consider the rekv utory rules maue in exercise of the statutory powers, have made a differef! ce in the position arising in respect of allotments of agricultural lands granted in favour of displaced persons in East Punjab who left landed property in West Punjab. It is, therefore, necessart to review the same. The first measure for the resettlement of the displaced land-holders of \'\'est Punjab on evacuee lands was the East Punjab Refugees (Registration of Land Claims) Ordinance, 1948 (E. P.
Ordinance VII of 1948) which was replaced by East Punjab Refugees (Registration of Land Claims) Act, 1948 (E. P. XII of 1948). It is in pursuance of the rules framed under this Act that what is known as the Parcha claim and the form therefor were standardised calling for accurate information as regards quite a large number of details which had to be taken into consideration in determin-ing the land to be allotted to a displaced land-holder. This was followed by the East Punjab Displaced Persons (Land Resettlement) Ordinance, 1949 (E. P. Ordinance XIV of i949) which was replaced by the East Punjab Displaced Persons (Land Resettlement) Act, 1949 (E. P. XXXVI of r949). This Act was meant "to provide for the allotment of evacuee lands in East Punjab". The right of an allottee to possession of the land allotted subject to payment of rent, etc.
, to the Custodian or his right to a share in the rent from the present holder thereof (that is, the cultivating occupant), if any, and other incidents arising from such possession were specifted in this Act. In between these two Acts, notification No. 4892/S dated July 8, 1949, was issued by the Punjab Government in exercise of the rule-making power vested in it under els. (f) and (ff)of sub-s. (2) of s. 22 of East Punjab Act XIV of 1947 as amended in 1948. This notification sets out the statement of conditions on which the Custodian could grant allotments of land vested in him. This notification is virtually the charter of the rights of allottees. It is the basis of what has come to be known as the quasi-permanent allotment. In the rules set out i11 this notification a 'displaced person' i~, defined as 'a land-holder in West Punjab etc.
' and it is specified that, "an allotment sha11 be made in favour of a displaced person and for a period for which the land remains vested in the Custodian. " The word 'allottee' is defined as including "heirs, legal representatives and lessees of the allottee. It ma-,r be mentioned in this context that East Punjab Displaced Persons (Land Resettlement) Act, 1949, mentioned above, which was passed shortly after these rules were notified also defines the word 'allottee' and says that allottee means "a displaced person to whom land is allotted by the Custodian under the conditions published with East Punjab Government notification No. 4. 892/S dated July 8, 1949 and includes his heirs, legal representatives and sub-lessees.
" Thus the definitions of the word 'allottee' in the rules of July 8, 1949 and under the Act passed shortly thereafter recognise not only that an allotment is to be in favour of a displaced land-holder for the period the land is vested in the Custodian but that it enures for the benefit of his heirs and legal representatives. Therefore, the first incident of allotment implicit in this is the heritability of the rights of the allottee which constitute quasi-permanent allotment nuder the above mentioned notification of July 8, 1949. Various other rights are specified in els. 3, 4, 5, 7 and 8 of the said notification. These will be summarised later. But it is to be noticed that the allotment itself is subject to resumption under cl. (6) thereof.
Before considerii:ig the nature of the interest which these various clauses of the notification confer on the quasi-permanent allottee, it is necessary to see how far this notification of July 8, 1949, is affected by subsequent legislation and the rules framed thereunder. Now the East Punjab Evacuee Property Administration Acts were repealed and replaced by Central Ordinance XXVII of 1949 and Central Act XXXI of i 950. Both the Central Ordinance and Central Act had each a section, s. 53 and s. 55 respectively, under which the Central Government may delegate its rule-making power to the State Government. In exercise of such delegated power the State Government issued a notification No. 1554-Cust. dated February 6, 1950 the relevant portion of which is as follows : ' "The Provincial Government is pleased to notify that Statement of Conditions issued by the Custodian and published ·under the notification No. 4.
891/S and 4892 /S dated the 8th July, l 949, shall be deemed to be and shall continue to remain in force as rules framed by the Provincial Government under sub-section (z) of section 53 of the Central Ordinance No. XXVII of 1949 under delegation from the Central Government under Notification No. 3094-A/Cus/49 dated 2nd December, 1949, subject to the following modifications and amendments : (i) The rules as stated in the Statement of Conditions under notification Nos. 4891/S and 4892/S dated the 8th July, 1949, shall be called the Administration of Evacuee Property (Rural) Rules, 1949· (ii) Definition. (a) The word 'ACT' defined m ! he said Statement of Conditions shall mean the Adm~nistration of Evacuee Property Ordinance, 1949 \Ordmance No. XXVII of 1949). ,, ............................................................... The above rules of July 8, 1949, have, therefore, cominued to be operative as rules made under the Central Ordinance.
On the repeal of the Central Ordinance by Central Act XXXI of 1950 and by virtue of . b. fi s. 58 t h ereo fh t ese rues 1 contmue to e 1n orce as tho'ugh they are rules made under the Central Act of 1950. Further, the Central Government framed rules on . September 28, l 950, entitled Administration of Evacuee Property (Central) Rules, 1950, v,·hich will be noticed presently. Later, in exercise of the delegated rule-making power vested in the Provincial Government under s. 55 of the Central Act, the Punjab Government framed rules dated August 29, 1951, entitled "Instructions for review and revision• of land allotment. " These two sets· of subsequent rules w si-permanent allotment of land : J. Prodded further that nothing in this sub-rule shall apply to any application for rcTision made under section 26 or section 27 of the Act, within the prescribed time, against an order passed bv a lower authority on or before 22nd July, 1052.
" This amendment has undoubtedly the effect of modif)·-ing the po\\·er of resumption or cancellation vested in the Custodian authorities in respect of quasi-permancnt allottees by virtue of tl:c pre-existing rules and to confine such power within narrow limits as specified therein. But whether the restrictions on this power of cancellation can be harmonised with the power to vary or cancel allotments vested in the Custodian under s. 12 of Central Act XXXI of 1950 is, a matter not without some difficulty. It may, however be assumed that if possible, the latest amendment of r. 14 of Central Rules, 1CJ. 'JO, by the insertion of the amended sub-r. ~6) therein will ha,·e to be harmonised with the main section by a proce s nf construction so as not to nullify the beneficient provisions specifically enact .
res of that interest are that the ultimate ownership of the land is still recognised to be that of tile evacuee and the allotment itself is liable to resumption or canctllla-tion with reference to the exigencies of the administration of evacuee law. The interest so recognised, is in its essential concept, provisional, though with a view to stabilisation and ultimate permanence. The provisional characteristic of this interest emerges from the fact that there have had to be a series of inter- Dominion conferences to settle on governmental level the· problems arising out of evacuee property in either country. The stabilisation had to await the results of such conferences.
Thus both with reference to the internal necessities of the administrative problems inherent in the process of settling the displaced persons on the evacuee lands with reference to various considerations and policies and the external problem of arriving at understandings between the two governments, these rights had to be so regulated from time to time '1nd had an element of unstability, thou.! \"h they were being prcgressively invested with the characteristics of stability. An interest in land owned by another in such a situation cannot be fitted into any concept of 'property' in itself. The concept of a bundle of rights in agricultural land constituting by itself 'p,roperty' is the outcome of a stable and settled state of affairs relating to such bundle of rights. Historical jurisprudence shows that even the concept of individual property in agricultural ·land was the outcome of stable and settled conditions of society.
It is also relevant to observe that the incidents of quasi-permanent allotment are entirelly statutory. Custodian, Subjection to the power of cancellation by the Custodian in whom the property is vested is one of such Jagannadhadas incidents and determines the quality thereof. Therefore, having given our best consideration, we are unable to hold that the interest a of quasi-permanent allottee is 'property' within the concept of that word so as to attract the protection of fundamental rights. Property, to fall within the scope of Art. 19(1) (f), must be capable of being the subject-matter of "acquisition and disposal". The interest of the quasi-permanent allottt:e arises by statutcry grant to a. specified class of persons and is not capable of acquisition by the ordinary citizen in any of the normal modes. Nor is it capable of disposal by the allottee himself in the normal modes by way of sale, mortgage, gift or will.
Neither is the interest of the quasi-permanent allottee such as can be brought within the scope of Art. '. :i r ( 2). Article 3 r ( 2) as recently amended, taken with Art. 3 r ( 2A) contemplates acquisition or requisitioning (and taking possession) as a result of transfer of the ownership or of the right to possession. It is true that the recent amendment came into operation on April 27, 1955, and the impugned orders of the Cwtodi;:m and Deputy Custodian-General are on February 6, 1952, and May l, 1954. But in view of the word "deemed" in the amended Art. 3 I ( 2A) it appears likely that the amendment was intended to be retrospective. Even assuming that it is not so, the words "taking possession" or "acquisition" in Art. 31 (2) prior to the amendment are wholly inapt and inapplicable to the bundle of rights of the nature detailed above which constitute quasi-permanent tenure and it is difficult to apply to it the protection under Art.
31 (2) either as it stood before the amendment or after te amehndment. Learned counsel for the petitioners has urged that even if Arts. 19(1) (f) and 31{2) are not applicable, the [ 1957 J petitioners can invoke the protection of Art. 31(1) which says that no person shall be deprived of his property save by authority of law. He relies on the /,,~';' judgment of one of us reported in the State of West · Bengal v. Subodh Gopal Bose ('), where it was stated as ]. follows : "The word 'property' as used in Article 31 ( 1) may have been intended to be understood in a wider sense and deprivation of any individual right out of a bundle of rights constituting concrete property may be deprivation of 'property' which would require the authority of law. " This is a view which was not shared by the other members of the Court in that decision. In any case it is clear that in order that Art.
3 I ( 1) may apply, it is not enough that there is 'deprivation' but it must also be deprivation without the authority if law. What has happened, however, in this case is not deprivation of the property without the authority of law even assuming that the bundle of rights constituting such an interest in land is 'property'. It is the working out of the right of resumption or cancellation which was one of the incidents of the property. The cancellation by the Custodian authorities was under the very law which created those rights. Even if the exercise of that authority can be made out to be wrong, it is still not open to question having regard to ss. 28 and 46 of Central Act XXXI of 1950. It is not an illegal usurpation of jurisdiction by the authorities concerned so as to constitute negation of the authority of law.
In the present case what has happened is that the quasi-permanent allotment of the petitioners has been cancelled in order to work out readjustments consequent upoμ the order of the higher authority. Learned counsel for the petitioners has strenuously urged that under the qusi-permanent allotment scheme the allottee is entitled to a right to possession within the limits of the relevant notification and that such right to possession is ·itself 'property'. That may be so in a sense. But it does not affect the (•) [•954] S. C R. 587,673, question whether it is property so as to attract the protection of fundamental rights under the Constitution. If the totality of the bundle of rights of the quasi-permanent allottee in the evacuee land constituting an interest in such land, is not property entitled to protection of fundamental rights, mere possession of the land by virtue of such interest is not on any higher footing.
Learned counsel has also drawn our attention to a number of Acts and notifications of the Punjab Government to show that a quasi-permanent allottee has been treated as being in the same position as an owner of land itself for various purposes. Thus in r. 5 of the Land Revenue Rules under the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887 (Punjab Act XVII of 1887), a quasi-permanent allottee is classed with other land owners as being eligible for appointment as 2 aildars. Similarly by virtue of rules framed under the East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948 (East Punjab Act L of 1948), a quasi-permanent allottee is liable to pay the cost of consolidation if such consolidation comprises lands in his occupation. These and other such provisions, however, have no bearing on the question at issue before . us. After the close of the arguments before us a recent decision of the Punjab High Court reported in Suraj 1 Parkash Kapur v.
The State oj Punjab ( ) has been brought to our notice and we have given our careful consideration to the same. That decision may be right on its merits, a matter about which we express no opinion. But, with respect, we are unable to agree with the view expressed therein that a quasi-permanent allottee has such an interest in the land allotted to him as to constitute "property", if it is meant to convey thereby that it is property which attracts the protection of fundamental rights under the Constitution. For all the above reasons we are unable to hold that any fundamental right of the petitioners has been (1) (1957) LIX P. L. R. 103. ~ S. C. lndiaJ59 [ 195 7l 1957 infringed. This petition is accordingly dismissed but, in the circumstances, without costs. Amar Singh v. In holding that quasi-permanent allotment does not Custodian, Evacuu Property, Punjab. carry with it a fundamental right to property under the Constitution we arc not to be supposed as denying ]aga'(lnadhadas J.
or weakening the scope of the rights of the allottce. These rights as recognised in the statutory rules are important and constitute the essential basis of a satisfactory rehabilitation and settlement of displaced land-holders. Until such time as these land-holders obtain sanads to the lands, these rights are entitled to zealous protection of the constituted authorities according to administrative rules and instructions binding on them, and of the courts by appropriate proceedings where there is usurpation of jurisdiction or abuse of exercise of statutory powers. Petition dismissed. GIPN-2S-99 S. C. India/59-6-7-61-1,000
Source: Supreme Court eSCR. Dataset: Dattam Labs, CC BY 4.0. Text extracted automatically; compare with the source PDF for layout and accuracy.