REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 7477 OF 2019 (ARISING OUT OF SLP (CIVIL) NO. 13697 OF 2016)

RAMESH PARSRAM MALANI & ORS .....APPELLANT(S)

VERSUS

THE STATE OF TELANGANA & ORS. .....RESPONDENT(S)

J U D G M E N T

HEMANT GUPTA, J.

1) The  legality  and  validity  of  an  order  passed  by  the  Chief

Commissioner  of  Land  Administration,  Andhra  Pradesh1 on

February 26, 2003 is subject matter of consideration in the present

appeal.   Vide  aforesaid  order,  19.26  standard  acres  of  land  in

Village  Poppalguda,  District  Ranga  Reddy  was  allotted  to  the

appellant by the CCLA (as a delegatee of the Central Government)

as balance of verified claim of 43.7 standard acres of land.  

2) Some facts would be necessary to appreciate the contention raised

by  the  parties.   One  Parsram  Ramchand  Malani,  father  of  the

appellant, was resident of Sindh in the present-day Pakistan and

1  for short, ‘CCLA’

1

after  partition,  came to settle  in  Hyderabad.   The father of  the

appellant asserted that he was owner of  83.11 acres of  land in

Sindh.  Such land was verified vide an order passed by Settlement

Claim Officer, Bombay on November 22, 1952 (copy submitted by

the appellant during the course of the arguments).  On the basis of

such order, the father of the appellant applied for 200 acres of land

in lieu of 83.11 acres of land left by him in the West Pakistan (copy

submitted by the appellant during the course of the arguments).  It

is on the basis of such application that 40.4 standard acres of land

(323.10 local acres) was allotted in District Hyderabad East, Village

Bata  Singaram,  measuring  32.12  standard  acres  (262.11  local

acres)  and in Hyderabad West,  Village Boinapally measuring 7.8

standard acres (60.39 local acres).  There is no dispute between

the parties till such allotment.  Such allotment was made prior to

commencement  of  the  Displaced  Persons  (Compensation  &

Rehabilitation) Act, 19542.  Therefore, to regularise such allotment,

another letter was issued on March 24, 1956 after commencement

of the Act.  The father of the appellant did not raise any claim for

allotment of additional land till his death on August 10, 1988.  It

may  be  mentioned  that  Rule  51  of  the  Displaced  Persons

(Compensation & Rehabilitation) Rules, 19553 provides for scale of

compensation  in  the  form of  land  in  accordance  with  the  Land

Allotment Scheme in the States of Punjab and Patiala and the East

Punjab  States  Union  as  set  out  in  Appendix  XIV.   A  perusal  of

2  for short, ‘Act’ 3  for short, ‘Rules’

2

Appendix  XIV  would  show  that  against  area  abandoned  of  83

standard acres, the entitlement is allotment of 45.8¾ acres.  It has

also come on record that the father of the appellant, the displaced

person, sold the entire land allotted to him soon after allotment.

3) The appellant addressed a letter to the CCLA on March 15, 2001

claiming  allotment  of  43.7  standard  acres  against  balance  of

verified claim.  The CCLA addressed the letter to the Settlement

Officer, Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India on May 5,

2001 but  no response was  received from the Ministry  of  Home

Affairs.   On  February  21,  2003,  the  appellant  made  another

representation to the CCLA pursuant to which CCLA allotted the

land measuring 19.26 standard acres (148.3 local acres) in Survey

No. 301 to 308, 325 to 328 and 331 part in favour of the appellant

on  February  26,  2003,  which  is  the  subject  matter  of  present

appeal.

4) The orders  of  CCLA were  stayed by a  memo of  Government  of

Andhra Pradesh dated March 20, 2003.  The Secretary to Revenue

Department in  the Government  of  Andhra Pradesh initiated  suo

moto  proceedings in respect of six cases of allotment of evacuee

property in Hyderabad and Ranga Reddy District.  Subsequently, a

show-cause notice was issued to the appellant on August 20, 2003.

The  appellant  filed  writ  petition  before  High  Court  of  Andhra

Pradesh  challenging  the  show-cause  notice  and  the  stay  order

dated March 20, 2003.  The High Court disposed of the writ petition

3

on  November  14,  2003  with  a  direction  to  the  appellant  to

approach  the  Revisional  Authority.   The  Revisional  Authority

dismissed the revision filed by the State on June 28, 2006 holding

that the allotment of land is in accordance with the Act.   

5) The said order was challenged by the State through the District

Collector, Ranga Reddy District by way of a writ petition before the

High  Court  at  Hyderabad.   Such  writ  petition  was  allowed  on

February 12, 2016.  It is the said order which is subject matter of

challenge in the present appeal.   

6) The  High  Court  has,  inter  alia,  found  that  CCLA  was  not  the

competent authority to make allotment of land,  inter alia, for the

reason that there was no delegation by the Central Government in

his favour to make allotment and secondly, for the reason that the

land stood transferred to the State Government on the basis  of

communication dated May 24, 1980 and was, thus, not available in

compensation  pool  for  allotment.   Thirdly,  the  High  Court  also

found that the claim of the appellant suffers from delay and laches.

7) A brief  resume of the Act,  process of  allotment and subsequent

repeal of the Act needs to be recapitulated.  In the aftermath of

partition of the country in 1947, there was large scale movement

of  population  from one  part  of  the  country  to  another  country.

Since, large scale of population moved, there was a question of the

rehabilitation  of  the  population  migrating  from  one  country  to

another to deal with the property of the population who left the

4

country.  The property of the persons who left the country vested in

the Union under the Administration of Evacuee Property Act, 1950.

The custodian was responsible for preservation, management and

administration of evacuee property as was done by various State

legislatures.   However,  the  law governing  allotment  of  evacuee

property to displaced persons was statutorily provided by the Act.

The procedure was that the persons who migrated to the country

will apply for verification of their property including land left behind

in West Pakistan and such property was verified on the basis of

revenue  record  either  received  by  the  Government  of  India  or

verified by the revenue authorities in Pakistan. Such verification of

the property was called as verified claim in terms of Section 2(e) of

the  Act.  Such  verified  claim  entitles  the  migrant  defined  as

displaced person in Section 2(b) of the Act for compensation in the

manner prescribed under Section 8 of the Act.  The property left by

the persons migrating to Pakistan (evacuee persons) was put in the

compensation pool as defined in Section 2(a) of the Act and was a

source of resettling the displaced persons.   

8) The process of resettling the displaced persons is based upon the

following steps as found by this Court in  Amar Singh & Ors.  v.

Custodian, Evacuee Property, Punjab & Anr.4:

“1. Registration and verification of land claims.

2. Assessment and valuation of such claims.

3. Classification of the villages and of lands of evacuees

4  AIR 1957 SC 599

5

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 administratively determined.”

9) The  first  step  is  registration  and  verification  of  land  claims  i.e.

verification  of  the  property  such  as  land  in  the  present  day

Pakistan.   The  assessment  and  valuation  of  such  claims  is  the

second  step  which  is  required,  for  which  Rule  51  read  with

Appendix XIV prescribes the scale of land which can be allotted in

view  of  verified  claim  of  the  property  left  in  the  present  day

Pakistan.  The third step is identification of evacuee land available

which forms part of the compensation pool.  Such land including

urban and rural land available for allotment with reference to the

valuation  of  the  claims  guided  by  other  consideration,  priorities

and preferences.  

10) The displaced person as defined in Section 2(b) of the Act includes

successor-in-interest of any such person.  Such displaced person

having a verified claim has to make an application for payment of

compensation  on  or  before  June  30,  1955.   The  Settlement

Commissioner would make an inquiry in the manner prescribed to

determine  the  amount  of  compensation.   A  displaced  person  is

entitled  to  payment  of  cash  compensation  or  compensation  in

terms of land out of compensation pool in terms of Section 8 of the

6

Act.  Section 12 empowers the Central Government to acquire any

evacuee property for a public purpose being a purpose connected

with the relief and rehabilitation of displaced persons.  In terms of

sub-section  (4)  of  Section  12,  all  evacuee  property  acquired  in

terms  of  sub-section  (1)  or  sub-section  (3)  forms  part  of  the

compensation pool.  Section 16 of the Act empowers the Central

Government to take such measures as it  considers necessary or

expedient  for  the  custody,  management  and  disposal  of  the

compensation  pool.   Section  16(2)(b)  empowers  the  Central

Government to constitute such authority or corporation as it may

deem fit for the management and disposal of the compensation

pool.

11) The Managing Officer or the Managing Corporation is competent to

transfer any property out of compensation pool in terms of Section

20 of the Act but the allotment is as per the valuation determined

by the Settlement Commissioner in terms of Section 20(1)(c) of the

Act.  The relevant provisions of the statute read as under:

“THE  DISPLACED  PERSONS  (COMPENSATION  & REHABILITATION) ACT, 1954

2(a) "compensation pool" means the compensation pool constituted under section 14;

2(b)   "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

7

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;

xx xx xx

4.   Application  for  payment  of  compensation. – (1) The Central  Government  shall,  from time to time, but not later than the thirtieth day of June, 1955, by notification in the Official Gazette, require all displaced persons having a verified claim to make applications for the payment of compensation and any such notification may  be  issued  with  reference  to  displaced  persons residing in any State or in any one of a group of States.

xx xx xx

8. Form and manner of payment of compensation. –  (1) A  displaced  person  shall  be  paid  out  of  the compensation  pool  the  amount  of  net  compensation determined under sub- section (3) of section 7 as being payable to him, and subject to any rules that may be made under this Act, the Settlement Commissioner  or any other officer or authority authorised by the Chief Settlement Commissioner in this behalf may make such payment in any one of the following forms or partly in one and partly in any other form, namely:-

(a) in cash;

(b) in Government bonds;

(c) by sale to the displaced person of any property from the  compensation  pool  and  setting  off  the  purchase money against the compensation payable to him; (d) by  any  other  mode  of  transfer  to  the  displaced person of any property from the compensation pool and setting  off  the  valuation  of  the  property  against  the compensation payable to him;

(e) by transfer of shares or debentures in any company or corporation;

(f) in such other form as may be prescribed.

(2) For the purpose of payment of compensation under

8

this Act, the Central Government may, by rules, provide for all or any of the following matters, namely:-

(a) the  classes  of  displaced  persons  to  whom compensation may be paid;

(b) the scales according to which, the form and manner in which,  and the instalment by which, compensation may be paid to different classes of displaced persons;

(c) the valuation of all property, shares and debentures to be transferred to displaced persons;

(d) any  other  matter  which  is  to  be,  or  may  be, prescribed.

xx xx xx

14.   Compensation  pool. –  (1) For  the  purpose  of payment of compensation and rehabilitation grants to displaced  persons,  there  shall  be  constituted  a compensation pool which shall consist of—

(a) all  evacuee  property  acquired  under  section  12, including the sale proceeds of any such property and all profits and income accruing from such property;

(b) such cash balances lying with the Custodian as may, by order of the Central Government, be transferred to the compensation pool;

(c) such contributions, in any form whatsoever, as may be  made  to  the  compensation  pool  by  the  Central Government or any State Government;

(d) such other assets as may be prescribed.

(2)   The compensation pool  shall  vest  in  the Central Government free from all  encumbrances and shall  be utilised in accordance with the provisions of this Act and the rules made thereunder.

xx xx xx

16.  Management of compensation pool. – (1) The Central  Government  may  take  such  measures  as  it considers  necessary  or  expedient  for  the  custody, management and disposal of the compensation pool in

9

order that it may be effectively utilised in accordance with the provisions of this Act.

(2)  In particular, and without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing power, the Central Government may, for  the  purposes  referred  to  in  sub-section  (1),  by notification in the Official Gazette.-

(a) appoint such officers as it may deem fit (hereinafter referred to as managing officers); or

(b) constitute such authority or corporation, as it may deem  fit  (hereinafter  referred  to  as  managing corporation).

(3)   Every  managing  corporation  shall  be  constituted under such name and shall consist of such number of persons  as  may  be  specified  in  the  notification,  and every  such  corporation  shall  be  a  body  corporate having perpetual  succession and a common seal  and shall by the said name sue and be sued:

Provided  that  one-third  of  the  members  of  every managing corporation shall be non-officials.

xx xx xx

17.   Functions  and  duties  of  managing  officers and  managing  corporations.-  (1)  All  managing officers  or  managing  corporations  shall  perform such functions as may be assigned to them by or under this Act under the general superintendence and control of the Chief Settlement Commissioner. (2) Subject to the provisions of this Act and the rules made  thereunder,  a  managing  officer  or  managing corporation  may  take  such  measures  as  he  or  it considers  necessary  or  expedient  for  the  purpose  of securing,  administering,  preserving,  managing  or disposing  of  any  property  in  the  compensation  pool entrusted to him or it and generally for the purpose of satisfactorily discharging any of the duties imposed on him or it  by or under this Act and may for any such purpose as aforesaid, do all acts and incur all expenses necessary or incidental thereto.

(3) xx xx xx

xx xx xx

10

20.   Power  to  transfer  property  out  of  the compensation pool.  –  (1) Subject  to  any  rules  that may be made under this Act, the managing officer or managing corporation may transfer any property out of the compensation pool-

(a) by sale of such property to a displaced person or any  association  of  displaced  persons,  whether incorporated or not, or to any other persons, whether the property is sold by public auction or otherwise;

(b) by lease or any such property to a displaced person or  any  association  of  displaced  person,  whether incorporated or not, or to any other person;

(c) by  allotment  of  any  such  property  to  a  displaced person or an association of displaced persons whether incorporated or  not,  or  to  any other  person,  on such valuation  as  the  Settlement  Commissioner  may determine;

(d) in the case of a share of an evacuee in a company, by transfer of such share to a displaced person  or any association of displaced persons, whether incorporated or not, or to any other person.  

12) To  give  effect  to  the  provisions  of  the  Statute,  the  Central

Government framed the Rules in exercise of the power conferred

under Section 40 of the Act.  Rule 3 provides for an application for

compensation  to  be  submitted  by  a  displaced  person  having  a

verified claim and in case of death of a displaced person, by his

successor-in-interest.  Rule 11 contemplates verification of claim by

the  Settlement  Commissioner.   Rule  49  contemplates  that  a

displaced  person  having  a  verified  claim  in  respect  of  an

agricultural land be paid compensation by allotment of agricultural

land.  The scale of compensation in the form of land is set out in

Appendix  XIV.  In terms of Rule 52, the Central Government may

11

from  time  to  time  having  regard  to  the  availability  of  land,

determine the maximum area of land which may be allotted in the

first instance to a person having a verified claim for agricultural

land.   Rule  86  deals  with  an  application  for  compensation  by

successor-in-interest.   Some of  the  Rules  which  are  relevant  for

examining the issues in hand are reproduced hereunder:

“THE  DISPLACED  PERSONS  (COMPENSATION  & REHABILITATION) RULES, 1955

3.   Persons  entitled  to  make  application  for compensation - An application for compensation may be made by a displaced person having a verified claim or if such displaced person is dead, by his successor-in- interest.

xx xx xx

11.  Enquiry by the Settlement Commissioner on receipt  of  duplicate  copy  of  compensation application - (1) On receipt of a duplicate copy of an application for compensation from a Settlement Officer, the  Settlement  Commissioner  (Headquarters)  shall verify the assessed value of the claim as stated in the application, with the final order in respect thereof in the claims record.

xx xx xx

34.  Date  of  transfer. –  Where  any  property  is transferred  to  any  person  under  this  chapter,  the property shall be deemed to have been transferred to him:-

(a)  xx xx xx

(b)  xx xx xx

(c)  xx xx xx

(d)  in any other case, from such date as the Central Government may, by general or special order, specify.

12

xx xx xx

49.  Compensation normally to be paid in the form of land - Except as otherwise provided in this chapter, a displaced person having a verified claim in respect of agricultural  land  shall,  as  far  as  possible,  be  paid compensation  by  allotment  of  agricultural  land. Provided that where any such person wishes to have his claim satisfied against property other than agricultural land, he may purchase such property by bidding for it at an open auction or by tendering for it  and in such a case  the  purchase  price  of  the  property  shall  be adjusted against the compensation due on his verified claim for agricultural land which shall be converted into cash at the rate specified in rule 56.

xx xx xx

51.  Scale of compensation in the form of land - The scale for the allotment of land as compensation in respect of a verified claim for agricultural land shall be the  same  as  in  the  quasi-permanent  Land  Allotment Scheme in the States of Punjab and Patiala and the East Punjab States Union as set out in Appendix XIV.

Explanation -  If  any  public  dues  are  recoverable,  the allottable area shall be reduced correspondingly.

52.   Manner  of  allotment  of  land -  The  Central Government may, from time to time, having regard to the availability of land, determine the maximum area of land which may be allotted in the first  instance to a person  having  a  verified  claim  for  agricultural  land. Such  area  shall  be  the  area  permissible  under  the scheme referred to in rule 51 or thirty standard acres whichever is less:

Provided  that  the  balance,  if  any,  of  the  area permissible for allotment according to the scale referred to in Rule 51 shall be given later in instalments as and when more land becomes available for allotment.

xx xx xx

86.  Proof by successor-in-interest - (1) On receipt of  an  application  for  compensation  from  any  person claiming to be a successor-in-interest of any deceased claimant as provided in rule 4, the Regional Settlement

13

Commissioner  or  the  Settlement  Officer,  as  the  case may be, take steps for the determination of his claim.

xx xx xx”

13) The  Revenue  Department  of  Government  of  Andhra  Pradesh  on

December  9,  1964  in  response  to  the  communication  of  the

Regional  Settlement  Commissioner,  Bombay  had  informed  its

officials, vide Annexure P/2, that the Settlement Organization was

in the process of winding up and that they had to find ways and

means for speeding up the process by transferring certain items of

this  work  to  the  State  Authorities.   The  Government  of  India

communicated  the  sanction  of  the  President  to  transfer  certain

items of work which were dealt with by the Office of the Regional

Settlement  Commissioner,  Bombay to  the  State  Government  on

payment of agency charges.  The items of work transferred were

collection of rent dues of acquired evacuee properties; disposal of

remaining acquired evacuee properties including urban agricultural

lands; disposal of unacquired evacuee properties; disposal of rural

agricultural  lands  and  recoveries  in  respect  of  evacuee  rights

transferred  to  locals;  collection  of  installments  on  price  of  land

transferred  on  installment  basis;  and  collection  of  lease  money

from the occupants of evacuee lands on percentage basis of the

amount collected by the State Government.   

14) It  is  thereafter,  on  May  24,  1980,  the  Ministry  of  Supply  and

Rehabilitation  Department,  Department  of  Rehabilitation,

14

Government of India issued letter in respect of transfer of items of

work  relating  to  administration,  management  and  disposal  of

undisposed  acquired  evacuee lands/properties  and  realisation  of

rental demands etc.  It was communicated as under:

“Subject:  Transfer  of  items  of  work  relating  to administration,  management  and  disposal  of undisposed  of  acquired  evacuee  lands/properties and realisation of rental demands etc.

Sir,

I  am  directed  to  state  that  the  question  of administration,  management  and  disposal  of  the remaining  undisposed  of  acquired  evacuee lands/properties and realisation of arrears of rental demands outstanding against individuals in respect of  evacuee  properties  in  the  State  of  Andhra Pradesh  has  been  under  consideration  of  the Government of India for some time past.

2.  It has been observed that only a limited number of  acquired  evacuee  agricultural  lands/properties remain  to  be  disposed  of.   Besides,  arrears  on account  of  rural  and  urban  evacuee  properties which run into considerable amount have become long overdue  for  recovery  and their  realisation  is presenting considerable difficulty.

3.  With a view to effecting economy in expenditure and  ensuring  proper  arrangement  for administration,  management  and  disposal  of acquired evacuee lands/properties and recovery of arrears  of  rent  of  rural  and  urban  evacuee properties it has been decided in public interest to transfer the aforesaid items of work to the Govt. of Andhra Pradesh for disposal of the residuary work in a  satisfactory  manner  and  for  carrying  out  the purposes of the Displaced Persons (Compensation & Rehabilitation)  Act,  1954  and  the  Rules  framed thereunder.

4.   I  am  directed  to  convey  the  sanction  of  the President of India to the transfer of the work relating to administration, management and disposal of the

15

remaining  undisposed  of  acquired  lands/evacuee properties and recovery of arrears of rent etc.   to State  Government  on  the  terms  and  conditions specified against each:

5.   I.   URBAN EVACUEE PROPERTIES  AND URBAN EVACUEE LANDS.

Sl. No.

Description of assets Payment  to  be  made by the  State  Govt.  to the Govt. of India

(a) 39  properties  in  the Districts  of  Khamman, Medak,  and Mahboobnagar,  the reserve  price  of  which is  Rs.1,62,000/- (Rupees  one  lakh  and sixty two thousands).

15%  of  the  reserve price.

(b) xx            xx

(c) (d)

The properties, would, thereafter, be managed and disposed of  by  the  State  Government  who  would pay to the Government of India 15% of the reserve price/market value as assessed in 1953 or 15% of the value realised as a result of disposal of these properties,  as  the  case  may  be.   The  balance amount  would  be  retained  by  the  State Government.

II.  RURAL AGRICULTURAL LAND.

xx xx xx

III. xx xx xx

IV.   DISPOSAL  OF  JUDICIAL  CASES  RELATING  TO EVACUEE  PROPERTIES  IN  THE  STATE  OF  ANDHRA PRADESH

xx xx xx

V. xx xx xx

VI. RESIDUARY WORK IN THE SETTLEMENT WING

Residuary work relating to the properties etc.

16

already disposed of will be taken over by the Sate Govt. and dealt with by them hereafter.

VII. RECORDS

The  files  pertaining  to  the  litigation  work referred  to  in  item No.  (V)  above  will  be  handed over  by  a  representative  of  this  Department  at Hyderabad.   The  files  pertaining  to  the  residuary work vide para (VI) above will also be transferred to the State Government.  In addition, there are about 6000 closed files in the Central Record Room of the Settlement  Wing  pertaining  to  the  properties already disposed of.   Necessary arrangements for transferring  this  record  would  be  made  by  this Department.   The  expenditure  on  their transportation from New Delhi to Hyderabad would be met by this Department.

VIII. TRANSFER  OF  WORK  UNDER  THE  EVACUEE INTEREST (SEPARATION) ACT, 1951

The  work  relating  to  administration, management and disposal of composite properties in terms of the Evacuee Interest (Separation) Act, 1951  shall  stand  transferred  to  the  State Government with effect from 1.6.1980.

(a)   The  State  Government  shall  appoint  a Competent Officer under Section 4 and an Appellate Officer under Section 13 of the said Act, to deal with the  composite  properties  in  respect  of  which proceedings  under  any  provisions  of  the  said  Act have  already  been  started  or  may  be  started hereafter.

(b)   After  the  evacuee  interest  is  separated,  the State Government shall deal with and dispose of the properties in accordance with the Evacuee Interest (Separation) Act,  1951 and the Displaced Persons (Compensation & Rehabilitation) Act, 1954.

(c)  The State Government shall pay to the Govt. of India the following share out of the sale proceeds of evacuee share in the composite properties:

(i) In  the  case  of  urban evacuee properties  and

15%  of  the  amount realised.

17

urban evacuee lands. (ii) In  the  case  of  rural

evacuee  lands/ properties.

5%  of  the  amount realised.

The  remaining  share  of  the  sale  proceeds  in  the evacuee  interest  shall  be  retained  by  the  State Government on account of their administrative and other charges.

The  entire  expenditure  on  account  of  the administration,  management  and  disposal  of  the composite  properties  in  Andhra  Pradesh  and  the establishment  of  the  Competent  Officer  and Appellate  Officer  shall  be  borne  by  the  State Government.  

IX. THE  REMAINING  UNDISPOSED  OF  URBAN EVACUEE PROPERTIES URBAN EVACUEE LANDS AND RURAL AGRICULTURAL LANDS.

All the lands/properties held and dealt with by the Custodian  of  Evacuee  Property  under  the Administration of Evacuee Property Act, 1950 which have  not  yet  been  finally  disposed  of  under  the provisions  of  the  aforesaid  Act  or  the  Displaced Persons (Compensation & Rehabilitation) Act, 1954 shall stand transferred to the Government of Andhra Pradesh with effect from 1.6.1980.

6.  The arrangement detailed above shall not in any way  affect  the  payment  of  compensation  to  the displaced  persons  having  unsatisfied  claims  for properties  left  in  former  West  Pakistan  in accordance  with  the  provisions  of  the  Displaced Persons (Compensation & Rehabilitation) Act, 1954. Their  claims  shall,  as  usual,  be  dealt  with  the Officers of the Government of India.  The liability to satisfy  the  claims  of  the  displaced  persons  shall continue to rest with the Government of India.

7. xx xx xx

8.   The  properties  mentioned  above  should  be deemed to have been completely transferred to the Government  of  Andhra  Pradesh  with  effect  from 1.6.1980.  The entire sale price thereof payable on this account by the State Government in respect of

18

various  categories  of  properties  will  accordingly become due on 1.6.1980 and shall  be paid in six equal  half-yearly  installments  without  payment  of any  interest  thereon.   The  first  half-yearly instalment  due  on  1.6.1980  shall  be  paid  by  the State  Government  on  31.3.1981  and  subsequent half-yearly instalments will be computed from that date.  However, if the instalments are not paid on due  dates  as  mentioned  above,  interest  will  be payable on any unpaid amount for the period of late payment,  the  rate  of  interest  being  fixed  by  the Central  Government from time to time.  The total amount payable by the State Govt. in this respect to the  State  Government  by  the  Deputy  Chief Settlement  Commissioner  (G),  Settlement  Wing, Department of Rehabilitation, New Delhi.

9. xx xx xx”

15) It is, thereafter, Ministry of Supply and Rehabilitation, Government

of  India  issued  different  notifications  authorising  Officers  of  the

State to discharge the functions of the Central Government under

the Act.  The notifications dated June 23, 1980 appointing Tehsildar

as Managing Officer; Joint Collectors as Settlement Commissioners

and  Commissioner  of  Survey  &  Settlement  as  the  Settlement

Commissioner in respect of property forming part of compensation

pool within the State reads as under:

“S.O. 2006- In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954 (44 of 1954).  The Central Government hereby appoints all Tehsildars of various Talukas in the State of Andhra Pradesh,  to  be  the  Managing  Officers  for,  the purpose  of  performing  in  addition  to  their  own duties  as  Tehsildars,  the  functions  assigned  to  a Managing Officer by or under said Act, in respect of properties forming part of compensation pool within the State of Andhra Pradesh.

19

(2)  This supersedes Government of India, Ministry of  Rehabilitation,  office  of  the  Chief  Settlement Commissioner’s  Notification  No.  5(10)/L&R/63-A dated 22.1.1965.

S.O. 2007- In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954 (44 of 1954), the Central Government hereby appoints the Joint Collectors in the State of Andhra Pradesh as Settlement  Commissioners  in  their  respective districts for the purpose of performing in addition to their  own  duties  as  Joint  Collectors  the  functions assigned to a Settlement Commissioner by or under the  said  Act,  in  regard  to  the  management, agricultural  lands,  shops and vacant sites forming part of the Compensation Pool within the State of Andhra Pradesh.    

S.O. 2008- In exercise of the powers conferred by Section 3 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and  Rehabilitation)  Act,  1954  (44  of  1954),  the Central  Government  hereby  appoints  the Commissioner of Survey & Settlement Government of  Andhra  Pradesh,  Revenue  Department, Hyderabad,  is   Settlement  Commissioner  by  or under  the  said  Act,  in  respect  of  the  land  and properties  forming part  of  the  Compensation  Pool within the State of Andhra Pradesh.

S.O. 2009- In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section  (1)  of  Section  34  of  the  Displaced Persons  (Compensation  and  Rehabilitation)  Act, 1954 (44 of 1954), the Central Government hereby directs that any powers exercisable by it under sub- section (4) of Section 24 and Section 33 of the said Act  shall  be  exercisable  also  by  the  Secretary, Revenue  Department,  Government  of  Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad in addition to his own duties; in respect of the lands and properties forming part of the Compensation Pool within the State of Andhra Pradesh.”

16) The Chief Settlement Commissioner delegated his powers in terms

of  Section  34(2)  of  the  Act  to  the  Commissioner  of  Survey and

20

Settlement,  Government  of  Andhra  Pradesh  vide  separate

notification of the same date i.e. June 23, 1980, to hear appeals

under Section 23, revisions under Section 24 and transfer of cases

under Section 28 of the Act.

17) The  State  issued  a  circular  on  November  6,  1981  consolidating

instructions  dealing  with  evacuee  property  and  in  respect  of

transfer of residuary work to the State Government.  It was,  inter

alia, mentioned as under:

“Since the properties so declared by the Collectors as  Evacuee  Properties  were  acquired  by  the Government  of  India  under  the  provisions  of  the Displaced Persons (Compensation & Rehabilitation) Act, the Evacuee Properties have become acquired properties  of  the  Government  of  India  and  now stand transferred to the State Government.  Thus, no  action  need  to  take  in  respect  of  acquired Evacuee Properties under this Act.

xx xx xx

This  Act  provides  for  appointment  of  various authorities  in  the  Settlement  organization, constitution  of  compensation  pool  payment  of  a compensation  and  Rehabilitation  grants  to  the displaced  persons  and  disposal  pool  properties. This  Act  also  provides  for  appeals,  revisions,  and other  related  matters,  Rules  under  this  Act  were issued  by  the  G.O.I.  as  Displaced  Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Rules, 1955.  It is under this Act and Rules, action has to be taken for the settlement of  verified claims of  the displaced persons  and  disposal  of  the  pool  properties  now transferred by the Government of India to the State Government  under  this  Act,  the  Tehsildar  is  the Managing Officer, who is mainly concerned with the management  and  disposal  of  property.   The  Joint Collector is the Settlement Commissioner within his jurisdiction.  Revisional powers of Chief Settlement Commissioner  under Section 24 of  the Act,  stand

21

delegated  to  the  Commissioner  of  Survey Settlement and Land Records and the Secretary to Government in Revenue Department.

The Claim of displaced person in respect of acquired properties  have  almost  been  disposed  of  by  the settlement  organization  before  the  transfer  of residuary work to the State Government.  However, some  cases  may  be  coming  up  which  need  be examined and disposed under the provision of this Act and Rules framed thereunder.”

18) It  is  the Managing Officer who has to take such measures  as it

considers  necessary  or  expedient  for  the  purpose  of  securing,

managing or disposing of any property entrusted to him.  It may be

mentioned  that  the  powers  of  Settlement  Commissioner  were

vested  with  the  Commissioner  of  Survey  &  Settlement  of  the

Government  of  Andhra  Pradesh  but  such  post  of  Survey  &

Settlement  Commissioner  was  abolished  vide  notification  dated

21.01.1999 issued by the Government of Andhra Pradesh, but no

delegation  was  notified by  the  Central  Government  in  favour  of

CCLA.

19) Mr.  Kapil  Sibal,  learned senior  counsel  for  the appellant,  argued

that the land falling part of compensation pool is not transferred to

the  State  Government  and  that  the  land  vests  in  the  Central

Government in terms of the Act and can be utilized only for the

purposes  contemplated  in  the  Act  by  the  Central  Government.

Admittedly,  evacuee property was available in the compensation

pool and that, as against verified claim of the appellant of 83.11

22

acres, only 40.4 acres was allotted to the father of the appellant.

Therefore,  the appellant was rightly allotted balance land of the

verified claim by the CCLA on February 26, 2003.  It is argued that

the High Court has made out a completely new case so as to return

a finding that the land vested with the State and that the CCLA was

not  competent  to  allot  land  to  the  displaced person.   It  is  also

argued that the finding of the High Court that there was delay on

the part of the appellant to apply for allotment of land is a perverse

finding  as  the  displaced  person  has  a  right  for  allotment  of

equivalent land left  by him in West Pakistan in the aftermath of

partition.  It is the statutory mandate of the Central Government to

make allotment to compensate displaced person in view of the land

left  by  such  displaced  person.   The  Act  and  the  Rules  framed

thereunder  does  not  contemplate  that  once allotment  has  been

made, it exhausts the right of the displaced person to seek further

allotment. The displaced person has right to seek equivalent land

in India according to the verified claim in respect of  land left  in

Pakistan.  To support such argument, reliance was placed on Rule

52 of the Rules where it contemplates that the Central Government

may from time to time, having regard to the availability of land,

determine the maximum area of land which may be allotted in the

first  instance  to  a  person  having  a  verified  claim.   It  is,  thus,

contended that the Rules contemplate multiple allotments starting

with the maximum area of the land which can be allotted to the

displaced person.  Therefore, the allotment made in the year 1954

23

by  the  Regional  Settlement  Commissioner  will  not  exhaust  the

claim of the displaced person for allotment of more land.

20) Mr. Sibal vehemently argued that the transfer of evacuee property

in Punjab was complete which is evident from the fact that Punjab

Government  enacted  Punjab  Package  Deal  Properties  (Disposal)

Act, 19765, whereas, the communication dated May 24, 1980 does

not unequivocally transfer the evacuee  land to the State of Andhra

Pradesh as was the situation in Punjab where evacuee land was

transferred in pursuance of letters dated June 3, 1961, March 5,

1962, March 23, 1963 and March 29, 1983 as mentioned in Section

2(1A) of the Punjab Act.  The Schedule attached to the Punjab Act,

referring to letter dated June 3, 1961, provides for sale of 80000

standard acres of surplus land to the Punjab Government at the

rate  of  Rs.450/-  per  standard  acre  and  subsequent  letters  in

respect of the payment of sale price.  It is argued that there is no

outright transfer of land to the State of Andhra Pradesh as in the

case  of  surplus  evacuee  land  in  Punjab,  therefore,  the  Central

Government retained control  and management of  land falling in

compensation pool and is entitled to allot the evacuee land which

was available for disposal to the displaced persons.   

21) Mr. V. Giri, learned senior counsel for the respondents argued that

the appellant is a displaced person as defined in Section 2(b) of the

Act which includes the successors-in-interest of a displaced person.

5  for short, ‘Punjab Act’

24

It is contended that allotment was made in favour of the displaced

person  in  the  year  1954  under  the  Act  but  such  person  never

objected  to  a  quasi-judicial  order  passed  by  the  Regional

Settlement  Commissioner  under  the  Act.   If  the  father  of  the

appellant had any subsisting claim or was not satisfied with the

allotment of land, he had a right to object to the allotment of a

lesser  area  in  appeal  or  revision.   However,  the  father  of  the

appellant had not  raised any grievance for  more than 32 years

after the allotment of land till  his death in the year 1988.  It  is

contended  that  Rule  86  of  the  Rules  is  not  applicable  as  the

appellant is not raising claim of allotment of land for the first time

but  asserting  rights  as  successor-in-interest  of  the  deceased

displaced  person.  Rule  86  comes  into  play  if  the  deceased

displaced person could not submit his claim during his  life time

which claim had to be filed on or before 30th June 1955 by the

successor-in-interest in terms of Section 4 of the Act. Therefore, the

claim of the appellant is  grossly delayed and not permissible in

terms of the provisions of the Act.  

22) The first and the foremost question which requires to be examined

is as to whether the Central Government having transferred land to

the  State  Government,  could  make  allotment  to  the  displaced

persons  after  May  24,  1980.  Another  question  which  arises  is

whether CCLA, as a delegatee of the Central Government, could

allot land though he exercises the appellate powers, the power of

allotment  having  been vested with  the  Managing  Officer  as  per

25

Section 17 of the Act.   

23) In the State of Andhra Pradesh, initially a letter was communicated

on December 9, 1964 in response to the communication from the

Government of India regarding winding up of certain organization

of  the  Central  Government  and  transfer  of  land  to  the  State.

However,  on  May  24,  1980,  the  transfer  of  the  land  in

compensation pool to the State Government was completed when

the  circular  contemplating  administration,  management  and

disposal  of  remaining  undisposed  evacuee  property  was  issued.

The circular provides that the Central Government is to be given

15% of realised value of the properties after sale and the balance

sale  amount  was  permitted  to  be  retained  by  the  State

Government.   The  transfer  of  land  to  the  State  Government  is

complete w.e.f. June 1, 1980 subject to the conditions specified in

the  Circular  dated  May  23,  1980  such  as  payment  of  15%  of

realised value to the Central Government.  Even if, such value is

not  paid  by  the State  Government,  it  is  between  the  State

Government  and  the  Central  Government  and  not  for  any  third

party to make a grievance or dispute the same.   

24) All evacuee property in terms of notification issued by the Central

Government from time to time in terms of Section 12 of the Act

forms  part  of  compensation  pool  under  Section  14  of  the  Act.

Section 16 of the Act empowers the Central Government to take

such measures  as  is  considered necessary  or  expedient  for  the

26

custody,  management  and disposal  of  compensation  pool.   The

Circular  dated  May  23,  1980  relates  to  administration,

management and disposal  of  compensation which is in terms of

Section 16 of the Act.  Section 16(2)(b) of the Act empowers the

Central Government to constitute such authority or corporation for

the  purposes  of  sub-section  (1)  i.e.  custody,  management  and

disposal  of  compensation  pool.   The  Central  Government  is

competent to constitute any authority or corporation for the same

purpose.  Therefore,  the  transfer  of  land  forming  part  of

compensation  pool  to  the  State  Government  has  legislative

sanction in terms of Section 16(2)(b) of the Act.  

25) Once the power of  disposal  has  been conferred upon the State

Government, and the manner of transfer stands crystalized in the

circular, the expression disposal of land by the State Government

will  include  transfer  of  title  to  the  purchaser  as  the  State

Government could transfer only that much right which the owner

i.e. the Central Government had.  Therefore, disposal of land would

mean transfer  of  land free from all  encumbrances by  the State

Government except to the extent of 15% of the realised value as

the share of contribution to the Central Government.  It is between

the Central Government and the State Government to regulate the

transfer between them. The management and disposal of land to

the State Government is in terms of Section 16 of the Act.

26) It  is  wholly immaterial that the language of letter issued by the

27

Central Government to the Government of Punjab in the year 1961

is  different  from  the  language  of  the  letter  issued  to  the

Government  of  Andhra  Pradesh.  The  purpose  of  both  the

communications  is  transfer  of  evacuee  land  to  the  State

Governments  to  give  effect  to  the  provisions  of  the  Act  for

consideration which was lumpsum in the State of Punjab and on

percentage basis in the State of Andhra Pradesh but the transfer of

land is complete as far as Central Government is concerned.  The

Division  Bench  of  Punjab  and  Haryana  High  Court  in  Ram

Chander  v.  The State of Punjab & Ors.6 observed that it is a

financial arrangement between the two Governments by means of

a letter, for which no instrument of conveyance under Article 299

of  the  Constitution  has  been  drawn  up.  No  such  instrument  is

necessary as the transfer was made under the Act and that the

provisions of Article 299(1) would not be applicable in a transaction

of this nature.  The Court held as under:

“What is true of contracts between Government and individuals  also  holds  good  in  the  case  of  the present  contract  which  was  between  the  Central Government and the State of Punjab. The details of the  transaction  of  transfer  had  been  settled between the two Governments and these conditions set  out  in  detail  in  the letter  of  1961 have been fulfilled and the transaction completed. It  has not been disputed that  the entire  amount due to  the Central Government has been paid and it would be pointless  in  such  a  situation  to  contend  that  the transfer,  not  having  been  executed  in  the  form envisaged  in  Article  299(1)  becomes  void  and inoperative altogether. As Mr. Justice Bose observed, the  provisions  of  Article  299  (1)  are  meant  to safeguard  the  interests  of  the  Government  and

6  (1968) 2 ILR P&H 651

28

there can be contracts which though not executed in the form contemplated in Article 299 (1) are all the same binding on the parties concerned. In our view, therefore, the package deal put an end to the ownership  of  the  Central  Government  of  the properties comprised in the compensation pool and the State Government thereafter had full authority to dispose them.”

27) In Pala Singh (Deceased) by LRs v. Union of India & Ors.7, this

Court approved the order passed by the Punjab and Haryana High

Court in Ram Chander when it was held that since the excess land

allotted was the package deal property the same cannot be sold

nor can it be allowed to be sold to the appellant by the Managing

Officer  under  the  provisions  of  the  Act  as  the  delegatee  of  the

Central Government.  The Court found that the order of the Officer

is without jurisdiction as the said property was no longer in the

compensation pool of the Central Government but it was a package

property vested in the State of Punjab.  The Court held as under:

“8.  It appears from the letters dated 3-6-1961, 5-3- 1962 as well as 23-3-1963 issued from the office of Chief  Settlement  Commissioner,  Government  of India that all surplus lands as well as excess area in occupation of the allottees stood transferred to the Punjab Government with effect from 1-4-1961 and the Punjab Government paid the price of the lands at  the  rate  of  Rs  445  per  standard  acre  to  the Central Government by half yearly instalments in 6 instalments  within  a  period  of  three  years commencing  from  1-4-1961.  So  these  lands  are package  deal  properties  vested  in  the  State  of Punjab. It has been rightly held in the letters patent appeal  confirming the order of  the learned Single Judge in the writ petition that since the excess land allotted to the appellant was package deal property the same cannot be sold nor can it be allowed to be

7  1987 (Supp) SCC 201

29

sold  to  the  petitioner-appellant  by  the  Managing Officer  under  the  provisions  of  Displaced  Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954. So the order  of  the  Managing  Officer  made  in  February 1962 is wholly without jurisdiction inasmuch as the said property was no longer in  the Compensation Pool  of  the  Central  Government  but  it  was  a package  deal  property  vested  in  the  State  of Punjab. It has also been rightly held that the Chief Settlement  Commissioner  is  competent  under Section 24 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and  Rehabilitation)  Act  44  of  1954  to  cancel  the allotment of land in excess of the area the petitioner is entitled to get under the provisions of the said Act.  This  legal  position  has  been  settled  by  a decision of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in the  case  of Ram Chander v. State  of  Punjab [1968 CLJ (P & H) 668, 673] wherein it has been held:

“In  our  opinion,  the package deal  has the effect of transferring the property from the Central Government to the Punjab State and the logical result which flows from it is that the Settlement Authorities  as delegates  of the Central Government could not pass any orders under the Act.”

xx xx xx

11.    It  is  therefore  clear  and  evident  that  the judgment of the Punjab High Court rendered in the case of Ram Chander v. State of Punjab [1968 CLJ (P & H) 668, 673] insofar as it relates to the validity of the package deal, has been upheld by this Court. So there is no merit in this contention made on behalf of the appellant.”

28) The argument raised by Mr. Sibal that the Central Government has

notified the authorities to give effect to the provisions of the Act,

therefore,  the  Central  Government  has  retained  control  and

administration of the evacuee property, is misconceived.  The land

forming part of the compensation pool was transferred to the State

30

Government  and  the  officers  of  the  State  Government  were

entrusted  with  the  functions  of  Managing  Officer  or  Settlement

Commissioner, as the case may be. The allotment of all evacuee

land is governed by the Act, therefore, the officers competent to

make  allotment  are  the  Managing  Officers,  whereas  power  of

appeal  and  revision  are  to  be  exercised  by  the  Settlement

Commissioner  or  the  Chief  Settlement  Commissioner.   Such

notifications facilitate the exercise of powers under the Act by the

officers of  the State Government in  respect of  land which stood

transferred to the State Government.  The CCLA in terms of the

scheme of the Act has no power to make allotment of land as he

exercises the appellate or revisional jurisdiction as a delegate of

the Central Government. The power of allotment is vested with the

Managing Officer only in terms of Section 17 of the Act.   

29) The allotment was made by the CCLA as a delegatee of the Central

Government.  The Settlement Commissioner had no power to make

allotment of land falling in compensation pool either before May 23,

1980 or thereafter.  Since the land stood transferred to the State

Government, the CCLA as a delegatee of the Central Government,

could not  deal  with the land forming part  of  compensation pool

which stood transferred to the State Government.   

30) On  this  ground  alone,  the  allotment  made  in  favour  of  the

appellant on February 26, 2003 cannot be sustained in view of the

Division  Bench  judgment  of  Punjab  and  Haryana  High  Court  in

31

Ram Chander, as approved by this Court in Pala Singh. We find

that the Central Government or its delegatee could not allot land

after  the  same  was  transferred  to  the  State  as  a  part  of  the

package deal.

31) However, we are unable to agree with the High Court that transfer

of land to the State Government takes such transferred land out of

compensation pool.  The land transferred to the State Government

continues to be part of compensation pool but it is required to be

disposed of by the Officers of the State who have been conferred

the  powers  of  the  Managing  Officer  or  of  the  Settlement

Commissioner for the settlement of the displaced persons alone. It

is  only  after  the  displaced  persons  are  settled,  the  State

Government may utilize the land for other purposes.

32) We do not find any merit in the argument that there is no time limit

for allotment of land to make good the verified claim.  Rule 86 of

the Rules will come into play if the displaced person has not raised

any claim within the time period prescribed under Section 4 of the

Act  i.e.  June  30,  1955  but  once  a  claim  has  been  filed  by  a

displaced person, the successor-in-interest steps into his shoes and

was required to raise his grievance in respect of allotment of lesser

area or  any other grievance arising out of  a quasi-judicial  order

passed by the Regional  Settlement Commissioner in the manner

prescribed  by  the  Act.   Since  the  predecessor-in-interest  of  the

appellant has not raised any grievance during his life time and for

32

more than 13 years after his death by the appellant, therefore, the

appellant  cannot  be permitted to  agitate the issues which have

attained finality.  Rule 86 of the Rules is not a perennial source of

allotment by the successor-in-interest but operates in respect of a

successor-in-interest by a displaced person who has not filed claim

during his life time of a displaced person before June 30, 1955.  The

successor-in-interest is also required to file claim before the date

fixed by Section 4 of the Act.   

33) The argument that the appellant is entitled to equivalent land as is

the verified claim is untenable.  The verified claim is verification of

the claim of the displaced person in respect of his property in West

Pakistan.  The entitlement of allotment out of compensation pool is

contained in Rule 51 of the Rules.  Rule 51 of the Rules provides for

the  land  which  is  to  be  allotted  in  lieu  of  area  abandoned.   In

respect of 83 acres of area abandoned, the entitlement is 45.8¾

acres  as  per  the  Appendix  XIV.   Therefore,  the  father  of  the

appellant could at best claim the remaining 4 acres but had to raise

a claim by seeking his  remedy against the order passed by the

Regional Settlement Commissioner on April 29, 1954 or March 24,

1956.    Rule 51 of the Rules will be applicable if the land is not

available and the competent authority decides to allot land in bits

and parts.  The order of allotment does not show that the allotting

authority reserved any right for allotment of the remaining land,

therefore, the claim of the appellant stood satisfied in its entirety

when the allotment was made under the Act in the year 1954.

33

34) In somewhat similar circumstances, the Division Bench of Punjab

and Haryana High Court  in  Chameli  Devi  & Ors.  v.  Union of

India & Ors.8 has dismissed the claim on behalf of successor-in-

interest after the death of displaced person on May 10, 1989.  The

displaced  person  has  never  disputed  any  claim  regarding  land

allotted to him.  It is after his death, the appellant met the Revenue

Minister in 1994, who set the allotment process in motion.  In the

aforesaid case, the Division Bench of the High Court held as under:

“16.  The facts of this case show that application was  filed  by  Harbans  Lal  Arora  on  15.03.1994, which was obviously highly belated. Moreover, such an  application  could  have  been  filed  only  by  a person,  who  was  a  holder  of  a  “verified  claim”, which according to the definition means a person, whose claim made under the East Punjab Refugees (Registration  of  Land  Claims)  Act,  1948,  had remained un-satisfied. Had this been the case Jeta Ram would not have remained quiet during his life time.  This  in  itself  suggests  that  the  application made  by  Harbans  Lal  Arora  lacked  bonafide. Further, such an application was to be made to the Settlement Officer and was to be examined by the Settlement  Commissioner,  who,  after  an  inquiry made  in  prescribed  manner  could  determine  the amount  of  compensation,  if  at  all,  payable.  The application,  if  made  by  an  heir  of  the  displaced person,  required  additional  documents  to  be  filed alongwith  it  to  enable  the  concerned  official  to make  a  determination  regarding  his  status.  The facts  of  this  case,  however,  reveal  that  an application was directly made to the then Revenue Minister  and  on  his  instructions/directions,  the Tehsildar  (Sales)-cum-Managing  Officer  passed orders  of  additional  allotment.  The  exercise  of classification of  land abandoned in West  Pakistan, valuation thereof  and valuation of land allotted in India  was  done  by  the  said  Managing  Officer, whereas according to the 1954 Act, such power is

8  CWP No. 14772 of 2000 decided on November 14, 2017  

34

vested in the Settlement Commissioner. The various orders  of  allotment  are  thus,  illegal  having  been passed  by  officers  who  were  not  vested  with jurisdiction to do so.

xx xx xx

19.  Thus, it stands established on record that the claim  of  Jeta  Ram  stood  satisfied  during  his  life time. There was no “verified claim” of him left to be satisfied and the entire exercise initiated by his son through  letter  dated  15.03.1994  was  with fraudulent  intentions.  Officials/officers  passed allotment orders with a view to benefit Harbans Lal Arora,  even  though,  they  did  not  have  the jurisdiction  to  do  so  under  the  law.  Even  the procedure prescribed by law was short-circuited so that instant gratification could be achieved.

xx xx xx

21.  Thus, it is unequivocally held that Harbans Lal Arora, as heir of Jeta Ram, was not entitled to any additional  allotment  and  his  belated  claim  was totally false, fabricated and arose out of an ulterior motive.”

35) Another argument was raised that the expression ‘package deal’ is

not the expression used in the communication dated May 24, 1980

though  such  expression  was  used  in  the  communication  dated

March  5,  1962  by  the  Central  Government  and/or  in  the

communication dated March 23, 1963 when communicating with

Punjab Government.  We find that the lack of use of expression

‘package deal’  will  not change the nature of transfer which is in

terms of Section 16 of the Act with the date of transfer specified as

June 1, 1980 in terms of Rule 34 of the Rules. The transfer of land

forming part of compensation pool is contemplated by Section 16

of the Act, when it provides that for the custody, management and

35

disposal  of  the  compensation  pool,  the  Central  Government

constitute  such  authority  or  corporation.  Thus,  if  the  Central

Government could transfer land forming part of the compensation

pool  to a corporation,  then it  could very well  transfer  land to a

State Government.

36) The  Punjab  Act  is  to  regulate  transfer  of  land  for  allotment  to

displaced  persons  after  vesting  of  surplus  land  with  the  State

Government of Punjab.  Such Act is only to regulate and provide for

procedure for allotment of surplus evacuee land.

37) In fact, the Act was repealed by the Displaced Persons Claims and

Other Laws Repeal Act, 2005.  One of the objects of the Repeal Act

is as under:

“2.  The major works of claims compensation and rehabilitation more or less had been completed by the year end of 1970.  Subsequently, the erstwhile Ministry of  Labour and Rehabilitation (Department of  Rehabilitation)  which  was  responsible  for  the aforesaid  rehabilitation  work  also  concluded  that only a limited number of  acquired evacuee urban and agricultural lands or properties had remained to be disposed of and the expenditure which was being incurred for the purpose was out of  proportion to the  volume  of  work  and  the  receipts  from  their disposal…

3.  Subsequent to the transfer of the ownership of the Central Government on the undisposed evacuee properties to the State Governments concerned, it was reported by the State Governments that a large number  of  claims  under  the  aforesaid  Acts’  are being  continued  to  be  filed  in  the  various  courts under  the  aforesaid  Acts.   It  has  further  been brought  to  the  notice  of  the  Central  Government that  a  number  of  persons  unconnected  with  the claimants posing as their legal heirs are presenting

36

repeated  demands  for  lands.   Examinations  have revealed that in most of such cases the claimants under  the  temptation  to  grab  more  lands,  have managed to obtain bogus and excess allotments.  It therefore  had  become  difficult  for  the  State Governments to retrieve the Government lands and properties worth crores of rupees from the hands of unscrupulous persons.”

38) The Government of India clarified on September 22, 2008 that the

proceedings pending under the Act before the repeal have to be

decided under the relevant laws.  It was communicated as under:

“3.  The matter has, therefore, been considered in detail  by  the  Ministry  of  Home  Affairs,  in consultation with the Ministry of Law & Justice and after ascertaining the ground situation from some of the  State  Governments/UTs  concerned.  Pursuant thereto,  and  in  order  to  remove  ambiguity  and doubts  which  appear  to  have  been  created,  it  is clarified  that  the  enactment  of  the  displaced persons  claims  and  other  laws  repeal  Act  2005 would not affect disposal of the following categories of  cases  and  the  State  Government/UTs  may, therefore, take action as appropriate, to settle them under  the  relevant  State  Laws  or  the  General Clauses Act:

3.1.   Unsatisfied  verified  claims  filed  under  the Displaced Persons (Claims) Act, 1950 in which right has accrued or has been acquired and which were pending as on 06.09.2005, the date on which the Displaced Persons (Compensation & Rehabilitation) Act, 1954 and other related Acts were repealed.

xx xx xx

5.  As regards revival of the authorities prescribed under the repealed Acts, it is clarified that since the subject  stands  transferred  to  the  State Governments,  action  for  settlement  of  pending matters, can be taken by the authorities prescribed under any state laws that may have been enacted or in any other manner as considered appropriate and  it  may  not  be  necessary  to  revive  the

37

authorities prescribed under the repealed acts.”

39) It  is,  thereafter,  another  communication  was  addressed  by  the

Government  of  India  on  November  17,  2016  subsequent  to  an

order passed by this  Court  in  Union of India  v.  International

Sindhi Panchayats & Ors.9 on April 28, 2014 that the cases and

proceedings which were pending on the date of repeal of the Act

will  be  decided  in  terms  of  the  provisions  of  the  Act.   It  was

communicated as under:

“2.  Considering the above judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court on the issue, this Ministry, in  consultation with Ministry of  Law & Justice has decided to request all the State Governments/UTs to continue  to  decide  the  pending  cases  and proceedings which were pending on the date of the repeal of the said Acts, and deal with the residuary works of administration, management and disposal of  acquired  evacuee  properties  (forming  part  of Compensation  Pool)  transferred  to  the  State Governments/UTs, under the un-repealed Displaced Persons (Compensation & Rehabilitation) Act, 1954 and  other  related  Acts  as  per  the  provisions  of Section 6 of the General Clauses Act, 1897.”

40) Mr. Sibal has strongly relied upon the order passed by this Court in

International  Sindhi  Panchayats.   The  said  order  is  that  the

cases  and  proceedings  pending  on  the  date  of  repeal  shall  be

decided under  the  provisions  of  the  Act.   The said order  is  not

helpful  to the issue raised in respect of  the right of  the Central

Government for allotment of land after the same was transferred to

State of Andhra Pradesh on May 24, 1980 w.e.f. June 1, 1980.  

9  Civil Appeal No. 6079 of 2010

38

41) In  view  of  the  above,  we  do  not  find  any  merit  in  the  present

appeal. Consequently, appeal is dismissed.

.............................................J. (L. NAGESWARA RAO)

.............................................J. (HEMANT GUPTA)

NEW DELHI; OCTOBER 22, 2019.

39