REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO.  5461 OF 2011 [Arising out of SLP (C) No. 14396 of 2010]

Jalandhar Improvement Trust                           …. Appellant

Versus

Vinod Kumar & Ors.                                       …. Respondents

                                        JUDGMENT

Dr. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA, J.

1. For the reasons stated in the application for condonation of  

delay, we are of the view that there is sufficient cause for  

such condonation.  Accordingly, delay condoned.

2. Leave granted.

3. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated  

30.04.2009 passed by the High Court of Punjab & Haryana  

at  Chandigarh  in  Civil  Writ  Petition  No.  10203  of  2007,  

whereby  the  High  Court  disposed  of  the  writ  petition  by

remanding back the matter to the Settlement Commissioner  

for  considering  the  claims  of  the  respondents  while  

maintaining status quo in the matter.

4. Brief facts leading to the filing of the present appeal are that  

the land in dispute belongs to the State.  It is averred by the  

respondents that they have occupied the land in dispute in  

the  year  1947,  measuring  2-1/2  kanals  in  Khasra  No.  

16693/6729 in the 55.0 Acres Development Scheme as they  

were displaced persons from Pakistan.  On the other hand  

the appellant – Improvement Trust Jalandhar has stated that  

respondents encroached the said land which belongs to the  

Government.  

5. An Award was passed on 05.01.1977 by the Land Acquisition  

Collector, Jalandhar Improvement Trust in Land Acquisition  

No. 1 of 1975-76 and in the said Award, it was stated that  

the  State  Government  (Local  Government)  vide  their  

notification  No.  8080-3CI-75/21963  dated  the  10th July,  

1975,  issued  under  Section  42  of  the  Punjab  Town  

Improvement  Act,  1922,  accorded  sanction  to  the  

Development Scheme for an area measuring approximately  

Page 2 of 13

55.0  acres  on  Police  Lines  Road,  behind  Commissioner’s  

Office,  Jalandhar  framed  by  the  Jalandhar  Improvement  

Trust.  The  aforesaid  Trust  vide  its  Memorandum  No.  

JIT/3058  dated  the  26th July,  1975,  applied  for  the  

acquisition  of  the  non-evacuee  and  composite  property  

comprised in the Scheme under  the Land Acquisition Act,  

1894.  It  was  also  stated  in  the  aforesaid  award  that  

according to the acquisition file prepared by the revenue staff  

of the Trust total area of the scheme works out to be 598  

Kanal 2 Marlas and out of this area measuring 69 Kanals  

and 2 Marlas belongs to the Improvement Trust, Jalandhar  

itself.  The  aforesaid  Award  included  the  area  in  dispute  

which is the subject matter of the present case.   

6. The respondents, however, contended inter alia that they are  

in occupation of the said land by way of evacuee property as  

they were being displaced persons from Pakistan.  The said  

land was transferred to the Improvement Trust,  Jalandhar  

for  the  execution  of  55.0  Acres  Development  Scheme  

developed by the Punjab Government.  The Land Acquisition  

Collector vide its Award dated 5th January, 1977 held that  

the  land  occupied  by  the  respondents  had  already  been  

Page 3 of 13

received  by  the  Improvement  Trust,  Jalandhar  in  the  

package deal.   

7. Respondents  filed  an  application  for  grant  of  proprietary  

rights in respect of land measuring 2-1/2 kanals in Khasra  

No.  16693/6729  in  the  55.0  Acres  Development  Scheme.  

However, the application filed by the respondents for grant of  

proprietary rights was dismissed by the Naib Tehsildar (S),  

M.O.  Jalandhar  on  03.08.1981  on  the  ground  that  the  

aforesaid  area  had  already  been  acquired  by  the  

Improvement Trust Jalandhar and that it was not an evacuee  

property.   

8. The  respondents  then  filed  appeals  before  the  Settlement  

Commissioner,  Punjab,  Rehabilitation  Department,  

Jalandhar against  the order dated 03.08.1981 which were  

accepted  by  the  Settlement  Commissioner  vide  its  order  

dated 5.10.1981 and remanded the matter to the Tehsildar  

(S)-cum-M.O., Jalandhar for fresh decision, after hearing the  

respondents.  

9. In  the  meantime  the  predecessor-in-interest  of  the  

respondents  Nos.  1  &  2  filed  a  civil  suit  seeking  for  

Page 4 of 13

injunction  restraining  the  appellant  herein  from  

dispossessing  the  predecessor-in-interest  from  the  land  

illegally, unlawfully or by force.  The Trial Court, namely, the  

Sub Judge passed an order in the said suit that the plaintiff  

would not be dispossessed from the suit property otherwise  

than in due course of law.  The said order of the Trial Court  

was also upheld by the Additional District Judge, Jalandhar  

vide his judgment dated 18.01.1985.   

10.Subsequent  to  the  aforesaid  order,  an  application  under  

Sections  5  and  7  of  the  Punjab  Public  Premises  Land  

[Eviction and Rent Recovery] Act No. 31 of 1973 [hereinafter  

referred to as the “Eviction Act”] was filed by the appellant  

initiating a proceeding for eviction of the respondents.  The  

competent authority issued notice to the respondents and at  

the  stage  when  the  said  proceeding  was  at  the  stage  of  

evidence, the file of the case lost, consequent upon which the  

proceeding was stopped.   

11.In the meantime the respondents filed a Writ Petition before  

the Punjab and Haryana High Court  contending inter  alia  

that the aforesaid land is an evacuee property and therefore  

Page 5 of 13

the aforesaid initiation of proceedings under Sections 5 and  

7  of  the  Punjab  Public  Premises  Land [Eviction  and Rent  

Recovery] Act No. 31 of 1973 is without jurisdiction.   

12. The appellant herein filed a counter affidavit in the said writ  

petition.   The  High  Court by  its  order  dated  12.05.2006  

disposed  of  the  said  writ  petition  by  holding  that  if  the  

Settlement  Commissioner  finds  that  the  claim  of  the  

respondents is without any merit and  they are not entitled  

to any alternative sites/rehabilitation then they would also  

have no action to claim to retain the sites which are under  

their possession.   Pursuant to the aforesaid directions of the  

High Court the matter was placed before the Sub Divisional  

Magistrate,  Jalandhar  by  the  respondents  herein  for  

allotment of property comprising in Khasra No. 16693/6729  

situated in Bhisti Darwaja, Civil Lines, Jalandhar.   

13.The Sub Divisional Magistrate, Jalandhar passed an order  

dated 27.04.2007 holding that the case could not be decided  

in  view  of  repeal  of  Displaced  Persons  (Compensation  &  

Rehabilitation) Act, 1954 by the Ministry of Law and Justice,  

Legislative Department, New Delhi.   

Page 6 of 13

14.Thereupon,  the  respondents  herein  filed  a  separate  writ  

petition for quashing the order dated 27.04.2007 passed by  

the Settlement Commissioner which was registered as 10203  

of 2007.  In the said writ petition the State of Punjab filed its  

counter  affidavit  in  which  it  was  averred  that  the  

respondents have already transferred their land which was  

being used as residential. With regard to the remaining land  

being used for Dairy, it was stated that they are not using  

the  said  land  as  the  Dairy  business  has  been  shifted  to  

Jamsher  Tehsil  Jalondha  in  the  light  of  the  decision  of  

Municipal Corporation of Jalandhar wherein the respondents  

have been allotted four different plots bearing Nos. 139 to  

142 vide letter dated 12.03.2008.   

15. The High Court passed an order dated 30.04.2009 which is  

the  impugned  order  herein  and  whereby  the  High  Court  

remanded back the matter to the Settlement Commissioner  

once again to consider  the  claims of  the  respondents  and  

also stayed their dispossession till the matter is decided by  

the Settlement Commissioner.   

Page 7 of 13

16.Being aggrieved by the said order the present appeal was  

filed on which we heard the learned counsel appearing for  

the parties. Counsel appearing for the parties have taken us  

meticulously through the entire records.

17.There can be no dispute with regard to the fact that the land  

in dispute is a part of the Award and the same belongs to the  

Punjab  Town  Improvement/Government  being  a  part  of  

development  scheme.   The  respondents  claimed  to  be  in  

possession of the said land as an evacuee property.   If  in  

case the respondents were in possession of the said land as  

an  evacuee  property  and  not  as  encroachers  meaning  

thereby  holding  right  and  title  to  hold  and  possess  such  

land, they were required to challenge the Award passed on  

05.01.1977.  The said Award having not been challenged by  

the respondents the same has become final and binding on  

all concerned.   

18.The  civil  suit  filed  by  the  predecessor-in-interest  of  the  

respondents Nos. 1 & 2 was disposed of by the trial court,  

namely,  the  Sub Judge  with  a  direction  that  the  plaintiff  

would not be dispossessed from the suit property otherwise  

Page 8 of 13

than in due course of law as respondents were in possession  

of the land, may be as encroachers.  Consequent thereto, the  

appellant has moved the competent authority for initiation of  

proceedings  under  the  Punjab  Public  Premises  Land  

(Eviction  and  Rent  Recovery)  Act,  1973.   In  the  said  

proceedings all the issues could be urged as to whether or  

not the respondents are owners and have their rights over  

the disputed land and also as to whether or not appellant is  

owner of the land and as to whether or not the respondents  

are authorised occupants or unauthorised occupants of the  

land.  It was also averred clearly in the writ petition and also  

in this appeal that the respondents have been allotted four  

alternative plots in lieu of their occupation of the land which  

is part of the disputed land.  The aforesaid fact although has  

been disputed by the respondents in their counter affidavit  

but no documentary evidence has been placed on record to  

indicate  that  the  aforesaid  land  was  not  allotted  by  the  

Government to the respondents and that they had purchased  

the  land  by  paying  full  consideration  thereof  from  the  

competent authority.   

Page 9 of 13

19.Be that as it may, as to whether or not the respondents are  

lawful  owners  of  the  land  in  question  or  they  are  mere  

encroachers and liable to be evicted would be gone into and  

decided although in a summary manner in the proceedings  

which were initiated against them.    

20. Since the Evacuee Property Act, 1950 has been repealed, we  

see no justification in the order dated 30.04.2009 passed by  

the High Court remanding back the matter to the Settlement  

Commissioner to consider the claim of the respondents once  

again  inasmuch  as  the  issue  as  to  whether  or  not  

respondents  are  authorised  or  unauthorised  occupants  of  

the land in dispute and as to whether or not the respondents  

are entitled to alternative plots or rehabilitation are matters  

which  can  be  adjudicated  upon  separately  in  accordance  

with law but not in the manner as suggested by the High  

Court.  Even  if  respondents  are  entitled  to  rehabilitation  

under any law the same has to be established by due process  

of law. But they cannot claim any land within the acquired  

area/55.0 Acres of Development Scheme but in case an order  

is  passed  in  their  favour,  they  would  be  rehabilitated  in  

alternative plot(s).  Therefore, they would have to prove their  

Page 10 of 13

case  before  the  competent  authority  and  not  before  the  

Settlement Commissioner.  However, in order to comply with  

the directions of the Civil Court and also for his eviction in  

accordance with law, proceeding has to be initiated under  

the Public Premises Eviction Act, which stands initiated, and  

therefore,  the said proceeding should be continued till  the  

same would come to a logical end.   

21. The  respondents  have  not  challenged  the  award  and  

therefore the aforesaid Award has become final and binding.  

Therefore, we set aside the order passed by the  High Court  

and  hold  that  the  proceedings  initiated  against  the  

respondents  under  Sections  5  and  7  of  the  Eviction  Act  

would  be  allowed  to  be  continued  and  the  same shall  be  

brought to a logical end as expeditiously as possible.   

22.The land in question is a part of the Development Plan and  

therefore the matter requires urgent consideration.  In any  

case the land in question being a part of the Development  

Plan cannot be left to the occupation of the respondents if  

they are held to be encroachers by passing an interim order.  

Therefore,  in  our  considered  opinion  the  proceedings  to  

Page 11 of 13

adjudicate upon and decide as to whether or not respondents  

are  authorised  or  unauthorised  occupants  of  the  land  in  

dispute should be completed and brought to an end. As to  

whether or not the respondents are encroachers would also  

be  decided  in  the  said  proceeding.    All  other  claims  

regarding entitlement of alternative plot or rehabilitation and  

whether or not such land is already allotted as rehabilitation  

package could be raised by the respondents only after the  

proceeding initiated under the Eviction Act is finalised and  

also depending on its outcome.

23.Six months time is granted to the competent authority to  

complete proceedings initiated under Sections 5 and 7 of the  

Eviction  Act,  so  that,  the  matter  is  disposed  of   as  

expeditiously as possible as the same is pending for a very  

long time.   

24. Therefore, the present appeal is allowed and the order passed  

by the High Court accordingly stands quashed.  We leave the  

parties to bear their own costs.

                         ...................................................J

Page 12 of 13

                                                [Dr. Mukundakam Sharma]

  ...................................................J                            [Anil R. Dave]

New Delhi, July 15, 2011.

Page 13 of 13