Date of the Judgment: 22 October 2019
Citation: (2019) INSC 1234
Judges: L. Nageswara Rao J., Hemant Gupta J.
Can a displaced person claim additional land decades after the initial allotment, especially when the land has been transferred to the State Government? The Supreme Court of India addressed this question in a case concerning the allotment of evacuee property. The Court examined whether the Chief Commissioner of Land Administration (CCLA) had the authority to allot land to a displaced person after the land was transferred to the State Government and whether the claim was barred by delay. This judgment clarifies the powers of the Central and State governments regarding the management and disposal of evacuee property. The bench comprised of Justice L. Nageswara Rao and Justice Hemant Gupta, with the majority opinion authored by Justice Hemant Gupta.
Case Background
Parsram Ramchand Malani, the appellant’s father, migrated from Sindh (now in Pakistan) to India after the partition. He claimed ownership of 83.11 acres of land in Sindh, which was verified by the Settlement Claim Officer in 1952. Based on this, he applied for 200 acres of land in India. He was initially allotted 40.4 standard acres in Hyderabad. The allotment was made before the Displaced Persons (Compensation & Rehabilitation) Act, 1954 came into force and was regularized later. The father did not claim additional land until his death in 1988. The appellant later claimed 43.7 standard acres as a balance of the verified claim. The CCLA allotted 19.26 standard acres of land to the appellant in 2003, which became the subject of this appeal after the State challenged it.
Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| November 22, 1952 | Land claim of Parsram Ramchand Malani verified by Settlement Claim Officer, Bombay. |
| 1954 | Initial allotment of 40.4 standard acres of land to Parsram Ramchand Malani in Hyderabad. |
| March 24, 1956 | Another letter was issued to regularise the allotment after commencement of the Displaced Persons Act, 1954. |
| August 10, 1988 | Death of Parsram Ramchand Malani. |
| March 15, 2001 | Appellant claims allotment of 43.7 standard acres against balance of verified claim. |
| February 26, 2003 | CCLA allots 19.26 standard acres of land to the appellant. |
| March 20, 2003 | Orders of CCLA stayed by Government of Andhra Pradesh. |
| August 20, 2003 | Show-cause notice issued to the appellant. |
| November 14, 2003 | High Court directs the appellant to approach the Revisional Authority. |
| June 28, 2006 | Revisional Authority dismisses the revision filed by the State. |
| February 12, 2016 | High Court allows the writ petition filed by the State, challenging the order of the Revisional Authority. |
Course of Proceedings
The orders of CCLA were stayed by the Government of Andhra Pradesh. The Secretary to the Revenue Department initiated suo moto proceedings regarding allotment of evacuee property. The appellant challenged the show-cause notice and stay order in the High Court of Andhra Pradesh, which directed the appellant to approach the Revisional Authority. The Revisional Authority dismissed the revision filed by the State, holding that the allotment was in accordance with the Act. The State then filed a writ petition in the High Court at Hyderabad, which was allowed on February 12, 2016. This order was challenged in the present appeal before the Supreme Court.
Legal Framework
The core of this case revolves around the Displaced Persons (Compensation & Rehabilitation) Act, 1954, and the rules framed under it. Key provisions include:
- Section 2(a) of the Displaced Persons (Compensation & Rehabilitation) Act, 1954: Defines “compensation pool” as the pool constituted under Section 14, which includes all evacuee property acquired under Section 12.
-
Section 2(b) of the Displaced Persons (Compensation & Rehabilitation) Act, 1954: Defines “displaced person” to include those who migrated from West Pakistan due to the partition and their successors-in-interest.
“displaced person” means any person who, on account of the setting up of the Dominions of India and Pakistan, or on account of civil disturbances or the fear of such disturbances in any area now forming part of West Pakistan, has after the first day of March, 1947, left, or been displaced from, his place of residence in such area and who has been subsequently residing in India, and includes any person who is resident in any place now forming part of India and who for that reason is unable or has been rendered unable to manage, supervise or control any immovable property belonging to him in West Pakistan, and also includes the successors- in interest of any such person; - Section 4 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation & Rehabilitation) Act, 1954: Requires displaced persons with a verified claim to apply for compensation by June 30, 1955.
- Section 8 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation & Rehabilitation) Act, 1954: Specifies the form and manner of payment of compensation, including cash, government bonds, or allotment of property from the compensation pool.
- Section 12 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation & Rehabilitation) Act, 1954: Empowers the Central Government to acquire evacuee property for the rehabilitation of displaced persons.
- Section 14 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation & Rehabilitation) Act, 1954: Constitutes the compensation pool, which includes all evacuee property acquired under Section 12.
- Section 16 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation & Rehabilitation) Act, 1954: Empowers the Central Government to manage and dispose of the compensation pool and to constitute authorities for this purpose.
- Section 17 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation & Rehabilitation) Act, 1954: Assigns functions to the managing officers for the administration of the compensation pool.
- Section 20 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation & Rehabilitation) Act, 1954: Empowers the managing officer to transfer property out of the compensation pool.
- Rule 3 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation & Rehabilitation) Rules, 1955: Allows a displaced person or their successor-in-interest to apply for compensation.
- Rule 11 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation & Rehabilitation) Rules, 1955: Deals with the verification of claims by the Settlement Commissioner.
- Rule 34 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation & Rehabilitation) Rules, 1955: Specifies the date of transfer of property.
- Rule 49 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation & Rehabilitation) Rules, 1955: Prioritizes payment of compensation in the form of agricultural land for those with verified claims for agricultural land.
- Rule 51 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation & Rehabilitation) Rules, 1955: Sets the scale for allotment of land as compensation.
- Rule 52 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation & Rehabilitation) Rules, 1955: Allows the Central Government to determine the maximum area of land to be allotted.
- Rule 86 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation & Rehabilitation) Rules, 1955: Deals with applications for compensation by successors-in-interest.
The Act and Rules provide a framework for the registration, verification, and assessment of claims, as well as the allotment of land to displaced persons. The compensation pool, consisting of evacuee properties, was intended to resettle those who had lost their property due to the partition.
Arguments
Appellant’s Arguments:
- The appellant argued that the land in the compensation pool was not transferred to the State Government and remained under the control of the Central Government.
- The CCLA, as a delegatee of the Central Government, was authorized to allot the balance of the verified claim.
- The initial allotment of 40.4 acres did not exhaust the appellant’s right to claim the full 45.8¾ acres, as per Appendix XIV of the Rules.
- The appellant relied on Rule 52, which allows for multiple allotments based on land availability.
- The appellant argued that the transfer of evacuee property in Punjab was explicit, whereas the transfer to Andhra Pradesh was not, implying that the Central Government retained control over the land.
Respondent’s Arguments:
- The respondent contended that the initial allotment in 1954 was a quasi-judicial order which the appellant’s father never challenged.
- The respondent argued that the appellant’s claim was significantly delayed, as the father did not raise any grievance for 32 years after the initial allotment.
- The respondent argued that Rule 86 was not applicable, as it applies only when a displaced person did not file claim during his lifetime.
- The respondent argued that the CCLA was not competent to make the allotment, as the land had been transferred to the State Government.
- The respondent argued that the transfer of land to the State Government was complete, as per the communication dated May 24, 1980.
The core of the dispute was whether the CCLA had the authority to allot land to the appellant after the transfer of land to the State Government and whether the claim was barred by delay.
Submissions
| Main Submission | Appellant’s Sub-Submissions | Respondent’s Sub-Submissions |
|---|---|---|
| Authority to Allot Land |
|
|
| Claim for Additional Land |
|
|
| Nature of Transfer |
|
|
Issues Framed by the Supreme Court
The Supreme Court framed the following key issues:
- Whether the Central Government, after transferring land to the State Government, could make allotments to displaced persons after May 24, 1980?
- Whether the CCLA, as a delegatee of the Central Government, could allot land, given that the power of allotment was vested with the Managing Officer under Section 17 of the Act?
Treatment of the Issue by the Court
| Issue | Court’s Decision | Reason |
|---|---|---|
| Whether Central Government could allot land after transfer to State Government? | No | The land was transferred to the State Government on May 24, 1980, and the Central Government lost the authority to allot it. |
| Whether CCLA could allot land? | No | The CCLA exercises appellate or revisional jurisdiction, not the power of allotment, which is vested with the Managing Officer. |
Authorities
The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:
Cases:
- Amar Singh & Ors. v. Custodian, Evacuee Property, Punjab & Anr. [AIR 1957 SC 599] (Supreme Court of India): This case outlined the process of resettling displaced persons, including registration and verification of claims, assessment and valuation, classification of land, allocation of claims, and allotment of land.
- Ram Chander v. The State of Punjab & Ors. [(1968) 2 ILR P&H 651] (Punjab and Haryana High Court): This case held that the transfer of evacuee property from the Central Government to the State of Punjab was complete, and the Central Government’s delegates could not pass orders under the Act.
- Pala Singh (Deceased) by LRs v. Union of India & Ors. [1987 (Supp) SCC 201] (Supreme Court of India): The Supreme Court upheld the decision in Ram Chander, stating that the package deal properties vested in the State of Punjab and could not be sold by the Managing Officer under the Act.
- Chameli Devi & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors. [CWP No. 14772 of 2000 decided on November 14, 2017] (Punjab and Haryana High Court): This case dismissed a claim by a successor-in-interest for additional allotment, holding that the initial claim was satisfied and the subsequent application was belated.
- Union of India v. International Sindhi Panchayats & Ors. [Civil Appeal No. 6079 of 2010] (Supreme Court of India): This case clarified that cases pending on the date of repeal of the Act should be decided under the provisions of the Act.
Legal Provisions:
- The Displaced Persons (Compensation & Rehabilitation) Act, 1954: The entire Act was considered to understand the process of compensation and rehabilitation of displaced persons.
- Section 2(a) of the Displaced Persons (Compensation & Rehabilitation) Act, 1954: Definition of “compensation pool”.
- Section 2(b) of the Displaced Persons (Compensation & Rehabilitation) Act, 1954: Definition of “displaced person”.
- Section 4 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation & Rehabilitation) Act, 1954: Application for payment of compensation.
- Section 8 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation & Rehabilitation) Act, 1954: Form and manner of payment of compensation.
- Section 12 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation & Rehabilitation) Act, 1954: Power to acquire evacuee property.
- Section 14 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation & Rehabilitation) Act, 1954: Constitution of the compensation pool.
- Section 16 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation & Rehabilitation) Act, 1954: Management of compensation pool.
- Section 17 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation & Rehabilitation) Act, 1954: Functions and duties of managing officers.
- Section 20 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation & Rehabilitation) Act, 1954: Power to transfer property out of the compensation pool.
- Rule 3 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation & Rehabilitation) Rules, 1955: Persons entitled to make application for compensation.
- Rule 11 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation & Rehabilitation) Rules, 1955: Enquiry by the Settlement Commissioner.
- Rule 34 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation & Rehabilitation) Rules, 1955: Date of transfer of property.
- Rule 49 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation & Rehabilitation) Rules, 1955: Compensation normally to be paid in the form of land.
- Rule 51 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation & Rehabilitation) Rules, 1955: Scale of compensation in the form of land.
- Rule 52 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation & Rehabilitation) Rules, 1955: Manner of allotment of land.
- Rule 86 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation & Rehabilitation) Rules, 1955: Proof by successor-in-interest.
- The Displaced Persons Claims and Other Laws Repeal Act, 2005: The Act that repealed the Displaced Persons Act, 1954.
Authorities Considered
| Authority | Court | How Considered |
|---|---|---|
| Amar Singh & Ors. v. Custodian, Evacuee Property, Punjab & Anr. [AIR 1957 SC 599] | Supreme Court of India | Followed to understand the process of resettlement. |
| Ram Chander v. The State of Punjab & Ors. [(1968) 2 ILR P&H 651] | Punjab and Haryana High Court | Approved and followed. |
| Pala Singh (Deceased) by LRs v. Union of India & Ors. [1987 (Supp) SCC 201] | Supreme Court of India | Followed and approved. |
| Chameli Devi & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors. [CWP No. 14772 of 2000] | Punjab and Haryana High Court | Followed for the principle of delay and satisfaction of claim. |
| Union of India v. International Sindhi Panchayats & Ors. [Civil Appeal No. 6079 of 2010] | Supreme Court of India | Mentioned for the principle that pending cases should be decided under the Act, but not directly relevant to the issue of transfer of land. |
Judgment
The Supreme Court held that the CCLA did not have the authority to allot land to the appellant. The Court reasoned that the land was transferred to the State Government on May 24, 1980, and the Central Government no longer had the power to allot it. The Court further held that the CCLA, as a delegatee of the Central Government, only had appellate or revisional powers and not the power to make allotments, which was vested with the Managing Officer under Section 17 of the Act.
Treatment of Submissions
| Submission | How Treated by the Court |
|---|---|
| Appellant’s claim that the land was not transferred to the State Government | Rejected. The Court held that the transfer was complete on May 24, 1980. |
| Appellant’s claim that the CCLA had the authority to allot land | Rejected. The Court held that the CCLA only had appellate/revisional powers. |
| Appellant’s claim that the initial allotment did not exhaust their right to claim full land | Rejected. The Court held that the initial allotment was final and the claim was barred by delay. |
| Appellant’s reliance on Rule 52 for multiple allotments | Rejected. The court held that Rule 52 is applicable if the land is not available and the competent authority decides to allot land in bits and parts. |
| Respondent’s argument that the claim was significantly delayed | Accepted. The Court found that the claim was made after a long delay and was not permissible. |
| Respondent’s argument that the CCLA was not competent to make the allotment | Accepted. The Court held that the CCLA did not have the power to allot land. |
Treatment of Authorities
| Authority | How Viewed by the Court |
|---|---|
| Amar Singh & Ors. v. Custodian, Evacuee Property, Punjab & Anr. [AIR 1957 SC 599] | Used to understand the process of resettlement of displaced persons. |
| Ram Chander v. The State of Punjab & Ors. [(1968) 2 ILR P&H 651] | Approved and followed to hold that after the transfer of land, the central government or its delegatee could not allot land. |
| Pala Singh (Deceased) by LRs v. Union of India & Ors. [1987 (Supp) SCC 201] | Approved and followed to hold that the package deal properties vested in the State of Punjab and could not be sold by the Managing Officer under the Act. |
| Chameli Devi & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors. [CWP No. 14772 of 2000] | Followed to reject the claim of the appellant on the ground of delay and satisfaction of claim. |
| Union of India v. International Sindhi Panchayats & Ors. [Civil Appeal No. 6079 of 2010] | Mentioned, but not directly relevant to the issue of transfer of land. |
What weighed in the mind of the Court?
The Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the following factors:
- Transfer of Land: The Court emphasized that the land was transferred to the State Government on May 24, 1980, which meant the Central Government no longer had the authority to allot it. This was a crucial factor in the Court’s decision.
- Authority of CCLA: The Court highlighted that the CCLA only had appellate or revisional powers and not the power to make allotments, which was vested with the Managing Officer under Section 17 of the Act.
- Delay in Claim: The Court noted that the appellant’s father did not raise any grievance for 32 years after the initial allotment, and the appellant’s claim was also significantly delayed. This delay was a major factor in the Court’s rejection of the claim.
- Interpretation of Rules: The Court interpreted Rule 86 to apply only when a displaced person did not file a claim during their lifetime and held that it was not a perennial source of allotment.
- Finality of Allotment: The Court emphasized that the initial allotment was a quasi-judicial order that should have been challenged within the prescribed time, and the claim for additional land was not permissible after such a long delay.
- Package Deal: The Court held that the transfer of land to the State Government was complete, similar to the package deal in Punjab, even if the language of the transfer letter was different.
The Court’s reasoning was based on a combination of legal interpretation, factual analysis, and the need for finality in legal proceedings.
Sentiment Analysis of Reasons
| Reason | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Transfer of Land to State Government | 30% |
| Lack of Authority of CCLA to Allot Land | 25% |
| Delay in Claim | 25% |
| Interpretation of Rules and Finality of Allotment | 20% |
Fact:Law Ratio
| Category | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Fact | 40% |
| Law | 60% |
Logical Reasoning
Final Order
The Supreme Court upheld the decision of the High Court and dismissed the appeal. The Court affirmed that the State Government had the authority over the land, and the CCLA’s order was without jurisdiction.
Conclusion
This judgment underscores the importance of timely claims and the finality of initial allotments under the Displaced Persons (Compensation & Rehabilitation) Act, 1954. It clarifies that once the Central Government transfers evacuee property to the State Government, the State has the authority to manage and dispose of that property. The Court’s decision reinforces the principle that claims for additional land must be made promptly, and long delays can bar such claims. The judgment also emphasizes the importance of adhering to the specific powers and functions of authorities under the Act.