Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Supreme Court of India

Chief Settlement Commissioner, ... vs Om Parkash & Ors, Etc on 5 April, 1968

Equivalent citations: 1969 AIR 33, 1968 SCR (3) 655, AIR 1969 SUPREME COURT 33

Author: V. Ramaswami

Bench: V. Ramaswami, J.C. Shah

           PETITIONER:
CHIEF SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER, REHABILITATIONDEPARTMENT, PUN

	Vs.

RESPONDENT:
OM PARKASH & ORS,  ETC.

DATE OF JUDGMENT:
05/04/1968

BENCH:
RAMASWAMI, V.
BENCH:
RAMASWAMI, V.
SHAH, J.C.

CITATION:
 1969 AIR   33		  1968 SCR  (3) 655
 CITATOR INFO :
 R	    1975 SC1856	 (7)
 RF	    1976 SC1207	 (352,464)


ACT:
The  East Punjab Evacuees (Administration of Property)	Act,
1947-Definition	 of  'displaced	 person'  in  para  2(e)  of
Notification  issued under Rules made pursuant to  s.  22(2)
(f) and (ff); The East Punjab Refugees (Registration of Land
Claims)	 Act 12 of 1948, s. 2(d)-Definition  of	 'refugees';
Person	with property in Pakistan coming to India  prior  to
partition-Dying in June 1947-Shown as owner of properties in
revenue	 records  received  from  West	Punjab-If  displaced
person-Whether	allotment of land in India must be  made  in
his name or in the name of his heirs.



HEADNOTE:
N  owned agricultural lands in Bahawalpur State now  forming
part  of Pakistan and also owned some property in Punjab  in
India.	 He died in June 1947 while on a visit to  India  in
the  normal course of business, leaving behind	three  sons,
the  respondents in the appeal.	 On the partition of  India,
the  land  in Pakistan originally owned by N and  after	 his
death by his sons, had to be abandoned.	 After migrating  to
India,	the  three  respondents	 filed	separate  claims  as
displaced  persons  and	 were allotted an area	of  land  in
Punjab.	  Thereafter  a	 complaint  was	 filed	before	 the
Managing Officer that these respondents had received  double
allotments.  The Managing Officer, held this allegation	 was
not  substantiated  but	 came  to  the	conclusion  that  N,
although  he had died before the partition, must be  treated
as  a displaced land-holder for the purpose of allotment  of
land  as his name continued to be shown in the Jamabandi  as
the owner of the abandoned land in Pakistan.  In consequence
of this finding a large portion of the land allotted to	 the
three respondents was cancelled by an order of the  Managing
Officer	 dated	September  18, 1961.  Appeals  made  by	 the
respondents to the Assistant Settlement Commissioner as well
as   revision	petitions  before   the	  Chief	  Settlement
Commissioner  Punjab,  were dismissed.	 In  dismissing	 the
revision petitions, the Chief Settlement Commissioner relied
on  para. 17 of "Tarlok Singh's Land  Resettlement  Manual"-
1952  edition-Page  180, to the effect that  "Even  where  a
displaced  land-holder in whose name the land stands in	 the
records received from West Punjab has died, the allotment is
made in the name of the deceased".  He therefore upheld	 the
view 4 at the land could only be allotted in the name of  N.
The  respondents  then	filed a writ  petition	against	 the
orders	of  the	 Chief	Settlement  Commissioner  which	 was
allowed.
On appeal to this Court,
HELD:Dismissing the appeal,
The  definition of a "displaced person" in para 2(e) of	 the
Notification  of  July 8, 1949, issued by the  Custodian  in
accordance  with  provisions  of the  East  Punjab  Evacuees
(Administration	 of Property) Act 1947, and the	 Rules	made
thereunder,  or of a "Refugee" in Section 2(d) of  the	East
Punjab Refugees (Registration of Land Claims) Act 12 of
656
1948,  show  that these expressions have been  used  in	 the
relevant  enactments  with  reference to a  person  who	 has
migrated  to  India as a result of disturbances or  fear  of
disturbances or the partition of the country.  Therefore  if
a  person had died before the disturbances took place or  he
had never migrated to India as a result of the	disturbances
and he died before such migration, he could not come  within
the meaning of the expression "displaced person" or the word
"refugee"  under the relevant statutory enactments.  N	died
in June, 1947, long before the partition of -the country and
he  did not abandon or was not made to abandon his  land  in
Bahawalpur on account of the civil disturbances or the	fear
of  such disturbances or the partition of the country.	[660
A-D]
There  was  no force in the contention that  even  though  N
never  became  a  refugee or a	displaced  land-holder,	 the
allotment had to be made in his name because he was shown in
the  revenue records received from West Punjab as the  owner
of  the land and there had been no mutation of the names  of
the respondents in the revenue records.	 The rule in para 17
of  "Tarlok Singh's Manual" consistently with the  statutory
enactments,  would  be applicable only to such	persons	 who
were  land-holders 'it the time of their becoming  displaced
persons or refugees and who died afterwards before allotment
could  be  made	 in their favour.  It does not	apply  to  a
person	like  N who was not a displaced land-holder  at	 the
time of his death. [661 D-F]



JUDGMENT:

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 937 of 1965. Appeal from the judgment and order dated September 13. 1963 of the Punjab High Court in Civil Writ No. 841 of 1962 and Civil Appeal No. 938 of 1965.

Appeal from the order dated September 13, 1963 of the Punjab High Court in Civil Writ No. 526 of 1963 and Civil Appeal No. 1195 of 1967.

Appeal from the order dated August 6, 1964 of the Punjab High Court in Letters Patent Appeal No. 136 of 1964. D. R. Prem, R. N. Sachthey and S. P. Nayar, for the appellants (in C.A. No. 937 of 1965).

R. N. Sachthey, and S. P. Nayar, for the appellants (in C.A. s Nos. 938 of 1965 and 1195 of 1967).

S. V. Gupte, Bhawani Lal and B. P. Jha, for respondent Nos. 1 to 3 (in C.A. No. 937 of 1965).

R. V. Pillai, for the respondent (in C.A. No. 938 of 1965).

H. L. Mittal and Naunit Lal, for the respondents (in C.A. No. 1195 of 1967).

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Ramaswami, J.-This appeal is brought, by certificate, from the judgment of the Punjab High Court dated September 13, 1963 in Civil Writ No. 841 of 1962.

Nanak Chand owned agricultural lands in Bahawalpur Statenow forming part of West Pakistan. He also owned some property at Kot Kapura, Tehsil Faridkot, District Bhatinda now located in India. Nanak Chand had in normal course of business come to Bhatinda where he died in June, 1947 leaving behind three sons, Om Parkash, Sat Narain and Ram Parshotam who are the respondents in this appeal. As a result of the partition of India the land originally owned by Nanak Chand and after his. death by his sons in Bahawalpur State had to be abandoned. After the partition of India the three respondents migrated to India and filed separate claims in accordance with law and obtained allotment of certain area in village Kot Kapura, district Bhatinda in lieu of the land abandoned by them in Pakistan. The Revenue Authorities allotted an area measuring 206.8 1/2 standard acres in village Kot Kapura, District Bhatinda. After the allotment was made one Rur Singh filed a complaint before the Managing Officer that these respondents had received double allotments in villager Kot Kapura. The complaint was examined by Shri Shankar Das Katyal, Managing Officer who held that Shri Rur Singh failed to substantiate the allegation of double allotment. But the Managing Officer came to the conclusion that Nanak Chand although he had died long before the partition of the country must be treated as a displaced land-holder for the purpose of allotment of land. The reason given was that his name continued to be shown in the Jamabandi as the owner of the abandoned land in Pakistan. In consequence of this finding a large portion of the land allotted to, the three respondents was cancelled by the Managing Officer by his order dated September 18, 1961. The three respondents pre- ferred an appeal before the Assistant Settlement Commissioner and a revision petition before the Chief Settlement Commissioner Punjab but the appeal and the revision petition were both dismissed. In dismissing the revision petition the Chief Settlement Commissioner relied, upon paragraph 17 of Tarlok Singh's Land Resettlement Manual, 1952 Edition, page 180 which was to the following effect :

"Even where a displaced land holder in whose name the land stands in the records received from West Punjab has died, the allotment is made in the name of the deceased. In the fard taqsim, 'therefore, the entry will be in the name of the deceased land holder. Possession is ordinarily given to the heirs but there must be regular 658 mutation proceedings before the entry in column 3 of the fard taqsim is- altered in favour of the heirs."

It was held by the Chief Settlement Commissioner that this paragraph related to all persons who continued to be shown as owners in the revenue records irrespective of the fact whether they had died before or after migration. In other words, the Chief Settlement Commissioner took the view that the land could only be allotted in the name of Nanak Chand even assuming that he had died in June, 1947. Against the order of the Chief Settlement Commissioner the respondents filed a Writ Petition (Civil Writ No. 841 of 1961) before the Punjab High Court. The Writ Petition was allowed by the High Court by its order dated September 13, 1963 and the orders of the Chief Settlement Commissioner ,dated June 8, 1962, of the Assistant Settlement Commissioner dated December 26, 1961 and of the Managing Officer dated September 18, 1961 were all quashed by the grant of a writ in the nature of certiorari.

It is necessary at this stage to set out the provisions of the relevant statutes. Section 2(b) of the East Punjab Evacuees' (Administration of Property) Act, 1947 (East Punjab Act No. XIV of 1947) defines an "evacuee" as meaning "a person ordinarily resident in or owning property or carrying on business within the territories comprised in the Province of East Punjab, who on account of civil disturbances, or the fear of such disturbances, or the partition of the country : (i) leaves or has since the first day of March 1947, left the said territories for a place

-outside India, or (ii) cannot personally occupy or supervise hi,; property or business." Section 4 of that Act provided that "All evacuee property situated within the Province shall vest in the Custodian for the purposes of this Act and shall continue to be so vested until the Provincial Government by notification otherwise directs." In pursuance of the powers conferred-by the rules made by the State Government under cls. (f) and (ff) of S. 22(2) of the East Punjab Evacuees, (Administration of Property) Act, 1947, the Custodian issued a notification no. 4892/S on July 8, 1949 regarding the conditions on which he was prepared to grant -allotment of land vested in him under the provisions of the said Act to displaced persons. Para 2(e) of this notification states " "Displaced person" means a land holder in the territories now comprised in the province of West Punjab or a person of Punjabi extraction who holds land in the Provinces of North-Western Frontier Province, Sind or Baluchistan or any State adjacent to any of the aforesaid Provinces and acceding to the Dominion of Pakistan, and who has since the 1st day of March , 1947, abandoned or been made to abandon his land in the 659 said territories on account of civil disturbances, or the fear of such disturbances, or the partition of the country."

Section 2(d) of the East Punjab Refugees (Registration of Land, Claims) Act. 1948 (East Punjab Act No. XII of 1948) states "2. Interpretation.-In this Act unless there is anything repugnant in the subject or context,-

(d) 'refugee' means a landholder in the territories now comprised in the Province of West Punjab, or who or whose ancestor migrated as a colonist from the Punjab since 1901 to the Provinces of North-West Frontier Province, Sind or Baluchistan or to any State adjacent to any of the aforesaid Provinces and acceding to the Dominion of Pakistan, and who has since the 1 st day of March, 1947, abandoned or been made to abandon his land in the said territories on account of civil disturbances, or the fear of such disturbances, or the partition of the country;"

Section 2(c) defines a "landholder" to mean "an owner of land. or a tenant having a right of occupancy under the Punjab Tenancy Act, 1887 (XVI of 1887) or a tenant as defined in section 3 of the Colonization of Government Lands Act, 1912 (Punjab Act V of 1912) and such other holder or grantee of land as may be specified by the Provincial Government;". Section 2(c) of the East Punjab Displaced Persons (Land Resettlement) Act,1949 (East Punjab Act No. XXXVI of 1949) defines a "displaced person" as follows :

" 'displaced person' means a land-holder in the territories now comprised in the Province of West Punjab or a person of Punjabi extraction who holds land in the Provinces of North-West Frontier Province, Sind or Baluchistan or any State adjacent to any of the aforesaid Provinces and acceding to the Dominion of Pakistan, and who has since the 1st day of March 1947, abandoned or been made to abandon his land in the said territories on account of civil disturbances, or the fear of such disturbances, or the partition of the country".

Section 2(b) of this Act defines an "allottee" as follows " allottee' means a displaced person to whom land is allotted by the Custodian under the conditions published with East Punjab Government notification no. 4892/S, dated the 8th July, 1949, and includes his heirs,. legal representatives and sub-lessees".

The main question to be considered in this appeal is whether Nanak Chand was a 'displaced person' as defined in para 2

(e) of the notification dated July 8, 1949 ,or a "refugee" as defined under S. 2(d) of Act No. XII of 1948 and whether he was entitled for allotment of land. It is manifest that the expression "displaced person" or the word "refugee" has been used in the relevant enactments with reference to a person who has migrated to India as a result of disturbances or fear of disturbances or the partition of the country. Therefore if a person had died before the disturbances took place or he had never migrated to India as a result of the disturbances and he died before such migration, he could not come within the meaning of the expression -"displaced person" or the word "refugee" under the relevant statutory enactments. It is manifest in the present case that Nanak Chand died in June, 1947 long before the partition of the country and he did not abandon or was not made to abandon his land in Bahawalpur on account of the civil disturbances or the fear of such disturbances or the partition of the country.

It was, however, contended by Mr. D. R. Prem on behalf of the appellants that even though Nanak Chand never became a refugee or a displaced land-holder, the allotment had to be made in his name because he was shown in the revenue records received from West Punjab as the owner of the land and there had been no mutation of the names of the respondents in the revenue records. Reference was made in this connection to paragraph 17 of Tarlok Singh's Land Resettlement Manual which has already been quoted. It was contended by Mr. Prem that the instructions contained in this paragraph would apply even though Nanak Chand had never become a refugee or a displaced land-holder and the allotment has to be made in his name by the revenue authorities because his name still stands in the revenue records received from West Punjab., We are unable to accept this argument as correct. It is not disputed that paragraph 17 of Tarlok Singh's Manual has no statutory authority but it merely embodies executive or administrative instructions for general guidance. If there is a conflict between the provisions contained in this paragraph and the statutory enactments already referred to it is manifest that the statutory provisions must take precedence and must prevail over the directions contained in para 17 of Tarlok Singh's Manual.

In this context it is essential to emphasise that under our constitutional system the authority to make the law is vested in the Parliament and the State Legislatures and other law making bodies and whatever legislative power the executive administration possesses must be derived directly from the delegation of the legislature and exercised validly only within the limits prescribed. The notion of inherent or autonomous law-making power in the executive administration is a notion that must be emphatically reject-

ed. As observed by Jackson, J. in a recent American case- Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer(1)-"With all its defects delays and inconveniences men have discovered no technique for long preserving free government except that the Executive be under the law, and that the law be made by parliamentary deliberations." In our constitutional system, the central and most characteristic feature is the concept of the rule of law which means, in the present context, the authority of the law courts to test all administrative action by the standard of legality. The administrative or executive action that does not meet the standard will be set aside if the aggrieved person brings the appropriate action in the competent court. The rule of law rejects the con- ception of the Dual State (2 ) in which governmental action is placed in a privileged position of immunity from control by law. Such a notion is foreign to our basic constitutional concept.

In our opinion, however, it is possible to give a restricted interpretation to paragraph 17 of Tarlok Singh's Manual so as to make it consistent with the requirements of the statutory enactments. The intention of para 17 is that it is applicable only to such persons who are land-holders at the time of their becoming displaced persons or refugees and who died afterwards before allotment could be made in their favour. In other words, the paragraph applies to a displaced land-holder who dies after having become a "displaced person" within the meaning of the relevant statutory enactments referred to above. The paragraph does not apply to a case of, a person who was not a displaced land-holder at the time of his death. In the present case it is admitted that Nanak Chand never became a displaced land-holder. On the other hand, Nanak Chand died before he became a displaced land-holder and therefore para 17 of Tarlok Singh's Manual has no application to the facts of the present case.

For these reasons we hold that this appeal has no merit and it must be dismissed with costs.

Civil Appeals Nos. 938 of 1965 & 1195 of 1967 The question arising in these two appeals is identical with the question of law in Civil Appeal No. 937 of 1965. For the reasons given in that judgment we hold that the decision of the High Court challenged in these appeals is correct and these appeals must be dismissed with costs.

R.K.P.S.		       Appeals dismissed.
(1)  343 U. S. 579, 655.

(2) This term is derived from Fraenkel, The Dual State (1941).