SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Ramesh Parsram Malani And Ors.. vs The State Of Telangana … on 22 October, 2019

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)

JUDGMENT

HEMANT GUPTA, J.

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

Commissioner of Land Administration, Andhra Pradesh 1 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

SectionRehabilitation) 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, 1955 3 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 SectionAdministration 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 SectionAmar 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 Sectionsection 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 Sectionsection 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
SectionRehabilitation) 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. Description of assets Payment to be made
No. by the State Govt. to
the Govt. of India
(a) 39 properties in the 15% of the reserve
Districts of Khamman, price.
Medak, and
Mahboobnagar, the
reserve price of which
is Rs.1,62,000/-
(Rupees one lakh and
sixty two thousands).
(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 SectionEvacuee 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 SectionEvacuee Interest
(Separation) Act, 1951 and the Displaced Persons
(Compensation SectionRehabilitation) 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     15% of the amount
evacuee properties and realised.

17
urban evacuee lands.
(ii) In the case of rural 5% of the amount
evacuee lands/ realised.
properties.

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
SectionAdministration 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 SectionRehabilitation) 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 SectionRehabilitation) 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 SectionRehabilitation) 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)/LR/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 SectionRehabilitation) 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 SectionRehabilitation) 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 SectionRehabilitation) 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 SectionRehabilitation)
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

SectionThis 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.

SectionThis 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. SectionThe 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 SectionPunjab 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, ‘SectionPunjab 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 30 th 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 SectionRam

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 SectionArticle 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 SectionArticle 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 SectionArticle 299(1) becomes void and
inoperative altogether. As Mr. Justice Bose observed,
the provisions of SectionArticle 299 (1) are meant to
safeguard the interests of the Government and

6 (1968) 2 ILR PH 651

28
there can be contracts which though not executed
in the form contemplated in SectionArticle 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 SectionLRs 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 SectionRehabilitation) 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 SectionRehabilitation) 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 SectionRam 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 SectionRam 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 SectionChameli 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) SectionThe Punjab Act is to regulate transfer of land for allotment to

displaced persons after vesting of surplus land with the State

Government of Punjab. SectionSuch 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 SectionRepeal 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 SectionGeneral
Clauses Act:

3.1. Unsatisfied verified claims filed under the
SectionDisplaced 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 SectionRehabilitation)
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 SectionRehabilitation) 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

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Copyright © 2020 SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation
×

Free Legal Help, Just WhatsApp Away

MyNation HELP line

We are Not Lawyers, but No Lawyer will give you Advice like We do

Please read Group Rules – CLICK HERE, If You agree then Please Register CLICK HERE and after registration  JOIN WELCOME GROUP HERE

We handle Women Centric biased laws like False Sectioin 498A IPC, Domestic Violence(DV ACT), Divorce, Maintenance, Alimony, Child Custody, HMA 24, 125 CrPc, 307, 312, 313, 323, 354, 376, 377, 406, 420, 497, 506, 509; TEP, RTI and many more…

MyNation FoundationMyNation FoundationMyNation Foundation