CHAND KUMAR KAPUR v. CHIEF SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER PUNJAB & ORS

Citation: [1984] 2 S.C.R. 1

Court: Supreme Court of India

Bench: D.A. DESAI, R.B. MISRA, RANGANATH MISRA

Case summary

Judgment text

.. ,. , CHAND KUMAR KAPUR •• v: CHIEF SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER PUNJAB & 0RS.. ' • ' B. December 12, 1983" _, ' [D. A. OESAi, R. B. MISRA ANJ;I RANGANATH•MISRA, JJ. ] Displaced Persons (Cbmpensatiofz & Rehabilftation) Act,. 195. 4. ~ East Punjab A. dministrlztion of. E•'acuee property Act; 1947. ..... Displacedpe"rson-Allotted land in semi~urban area~Po/icy 'decision· taken ~O (n1pose cUt in allotment-Managing officer whether competent to canCel~a/lotment. Evacuee Properly (Gentrafi. Rules 1950, Rule 14(6).. . • Action taken prior jo promulga. tion ofrule-Whethe; v. alid. . .. . ·. '. Interpretation of ShJlu! Js-DiSp/aced persons-Payment of compt:. nsat~ ~ ion-Undue enricli111eht-Whether ·peftnissible. . .. . •. · Tl). e ap;>ellaD. t, an evacuee from WeSt . J:akistan wa,s. allotted about six sta:tdard aC'res of land as disP:Iaced person under the . quasi-verman~t scheme· in a semi-urban area.

In 1952, the Director·of Rehabilitation submitteda prop~ _sat to ~he Fina·1ci'1I C~mmissioner, Ketief and R. ehabilitation-cum-CustOcH,g. n 'f that prenlium . cut of 5 villages, be enhanced from 18. 3/4% to 50% as similarly. ·situated villages carried a cut_· of 50%. ·The propoSal also suggested-, that· in . ·tw0 other neighbouring villages where no· prCmrum cut ·had been applied . ' earlier, a shnilar cut. of 50% should be applied. This cut was imPosed ori. the . . footing that these lands abutted the. Municipal area and had semi-urban . C! laracter. Thi. s p. ropJsal wa:-s accepted by ~the CoJJllliissioner as also by the GovernOr be. f9re 22nd July; 1952 when rulel4(6) ? f ihe· Evacuee Property .. (Central) Rules, 1952 _was amended, which provided that in respect of quasi- ·+ ' perffianent ·allottees c~rtcellat-ion. w:is pCrm·itted on-Jy·on grounds set oU. t in· ' rule 14(6) A feW allottees .

ch itdent will however noi be precluded from·entertaining the offer by the appellant, ir made, to pay the ext;a pre;i'um and/or any further . demand \tith a view to o_btaining a lawful settlement of the entire property without cut on the basis of the initial allotment. [5 G-HJ 3. People who were uprooted from Pakistan and became displaced persons were to be corllpenstated on the· footing that they had left behind lands in Pakistan and lands of people who had left India for Pakist::i. n had become evacuee propei;y and the compensation to the displaced persons could be by ~ettlement Of such lands. In s·uch cases no one. can look for undue e'nrichment. ·Qnce it is held as a fact ·that the properties are semi-urban and when this had not been kept in view When original allotment had been-n1ade~ it should always be pJssible to make an adjustment. Such an adjustment is just and fair. [5 C-DJ • _. In the instant case, there were 117 allottees in ·villages which were declared semi-urban and.

97 of these allottees paid the extra"premium anO wt:re allowed to acquire the entire land given to them. Twenty allottees including he appellant took steps to challif? ,ge the decis~n regarding levy of premiu·m as also cut'in the al1otments. There is no justificatioii as to why any differential-. treament should be shown to these twenty allottees partic1:1larly when· all the 117 allott~es Stood . at par so far as the application of the decision contained in the order cta·ted Februry 3, 1952 \"{as concerned .. [5 E-F] ·. E . Basant Ram v. Union of India, [1962] 2 Suppl. S. C. R. 733; Hukum Chand ·etc. , v. Union ofIndia & Ors. ~ [1973] 1 S. C. R. 896 referred . to. Hoshnak Singh v. ... ~ Union of fndia & Ors. , [1979] 3 $C. R. 399; distinguished. CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : CiVi. l Appeal No. 2057 of 1970. • F•om the Judgment and order dated 5th March, 1970 of the Punjab & Haryana High Court at Chandi$arh in L. P. A. No. 159 of 1968. • .

Harbans Lal and Vinoo Bh~gat for the Appellant. • S. K. Bagga for the Respondents. _G The Judgment of the Court was delivered by • RANGANATH MISRA, J. The only question which arises for co~- - sideration of this Conrt in this appeal by ~y of special leave under Article 136 of the Constitution against the Judgment of the Punjab &Haryan:a High. Court in: Letters Patent Appeal is as to whether the Managing Officer operating underthe Displaced Persons (Compens~- .. • C. K. KAPUR v. SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER (Ranganath Misra, J. ) ·3. tion & Rehabilitatfon) Act, 1954 ('1954 Act' for short), could ca9cel the allotment made in favour ofthe appellant under the Ea. st Punjab . Administration of E~acuee Property Act, 1947 ('P;injab Act' for short) and schemes framed thereunder. · · Appellant, an evacuee from West Pakistan owned agricultural lrnd in DlstrictLyallpur.

As a displaced person he was·allotted a little morethan six standard acress of land iri Village Kotla, Tehsil JulJundur in Punjab under the quasi-permanent scheme. In 195:2 the Director of Rehabilitation ,snbn:iitted a propo? al to the Financial Commissioner, • Relief and Rehabilitation-cum-Custodian that premium cut of. 5 villages, viz. , Sufi Pind, Obin, Barring Khusropur and Alladinpur be enhanced from 18. 3/4% to 50% as similarly situated . villages near Jullundm City carried a cut of 50%. This proposal also suggested that . in two other neighbouring villages, viz. , Shekhpind 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 Mi. micipalarea and had semi"urban character: This proposal :was accepted by the Commissioner as also by the Governor of the State "before 2nd July ! 952 when rule 14 (6) ·of the Evacuee Property (Central) .

Rules, 1950 was amended and in respect of qua_si-permanent allottces cancellation ,;,as permitted only on grounds set out in rule 0 14(6). The allottees of Sheikh P;;1d and Kotla. villages challenge:! . the orders implementing the policy decisio~. of cut of 50% Lefore the hierarchy of rehabilitation authorities and moved the Eigh Court by filing a writ petition. When . that writ petition was dismissed, special leai n r. · 'Union of lndia,(l) Hukum chaild etc. v. Union ef India & On. (') and Hoshnak Singh v. Union'of lnaia & Ors(! ). In Basant Ram's case thi•. • C01i~t decided that the approval of. the Central Government_. on the ,basis of which the N~tification of March 24, 1955. had been made was misconceived inasmuch as with the coming into force of the 1954 Act· the Administration of Evacuee Property Act, 1950 (Central Act -31 • (I) [1962] 2 Suppl. S. C. R. 733 (2) [1973] 1 S. C. R. 896 · (3) (1979] 3 S. C,K. 399 ' • .. C. K. KAPUR ·v. ·s~TLEMEN~ coMM1ss10NER (Ranganat,1 Misra, . f.

) . 5 of . ·i950) stood repealed . and the e~acuee·property; subject to the Act of 1950, had 6ecome a part of the compe. nsation: pool under the. AC! o( 1954. We agre~ witfi the apalysis of that decision by the High court. So fa~ as the second . case is concerned; the question that·fCJI for. con'"· sideration was whether. tules ~med by it could be given retrospective . ·operation by the Central Government. when the siatute either expressly or by necessary . implication had riot authorised rules to be. made with. • retrospective effect. So far as the lastcqse is concerned, the facts which gave rise to the dispute were very different and-ihe ratio (hereof has · . no application' to the present set of facts. ' . . . ln dealing wit. h a matter. of th-is type the broad perspective of .. the scheme has to be 'kept in view. People who were uprooted from ·Pakistan and b~eame displaced personswere to be compensated on the - . footing that they had. left behipd lands.

in Pakistan and lan~s of · people who had left India for ,Pakistan had become evacuee properly_ and the compensation to . the displaced persons could be by settlement of ouch fands. In ·a case of \1is. type no one can liiok for undt\e enrichment_. Once iI ·is held as a fact,' that. the properties are semi:· ·· D. urban and admittedly·this . had not been kept in view wl]. en original . ·. allotment had been. made . it should· always be possible to. make an adjJstment. Such anadjustmeni'is just and fair. It is ·appropriate to take. note of a very significant feature,'name! y, there were 117 allottees. in these'viilag-'8 which were declared sub'urban and 97 of these allot- . tees paid the extra premium, and. were allowed to acquire the entire . E land given to th.

eln; Twenty allottees including the appellant took steps 'to challenge the decision regarding levy of premium as also cut in the allotments: There is ·no jusiification as to, why any differntial treatment should he shown to these twenty alfottees particularly when all the 117. allottees stood at par so. ' far. as the application of "the 0 : decisio. n contained in the order dated February 3, 1952. is concerned. · We do not know ifunder the changed circumstance the sa'me benefit is ·t ··available tobe extended to the ippella. nt now, viz. , permitting him to' pay the extra premium at present. More. than 30 "years have passed and with the passage of such a length of time changed situations must have. come lo prevail. ·We s~e no justification to accept the appeal • and allow the benefit claimed by the appellant. But our dismissal of the appeal should not preclude the resp0 n~ent authorities from . entertaining'the ofter by.

the appellant, if made, to pay the ejttra premium and/or any further demand with a view to obtaining a law~ul · settlement of the entire NOperty without cut on the· basis of the initial . • • allotment. we make no order for costs in this ·appeal. . N. V. K · "Appeal dismls11~.. ...