PETITIONER:
ESTATES DEVELOPMENT LTD.
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
DATE OF JUDGMENT:
22/09/1969
BENCH:
RAMASWAMI, V.
BENCH:
RAMASWAMI, V.
SHAH, J.C.
GROVER, A.N.
CITATION:
1970 AIR 1978 1970 SCR (2) 534
1969 SCC (3) 39
CITATOR INFO :
D 1971 SC 771 (6)
ACT:
Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act
(44 of 1954), s. 24(2)---Order of Cheif Settlement
Commissioner--Conditions precedent for making.
HEADNOTE:
By a sale deed executed on November 24, 1944 the
appellant company purchased certain land located in an area
now part of West Pakistan. After the partition of India, the
company, on the basis of a registered sale deed, was
allotted certain land in Kapurthala in 1950 in lieu of the
land abandoned in Pakistan. On a report made by the
Managing Officer, Respondeat No. 3 on August 30, 1960
recommending cancellation of the allotment of land to the
company and after hearing the company, the chief Settlement
Commissioner rejected the registered sale deed and came to
the conclusion that at the time of partition the company did
not own any land in Pakistan nor was it in occupation of any
such land. Therefore by his order dated February 27, 1961,
he set aside the permanent rights acquired by the company.
HELD: The order of the Chief Settlement Commissioner must
be quashed on the ground that there is no finding of the
Chief Settlement Commissioner that the company had obtained
allotment of the land "by means of fraud, false
representation or concealment of any material fact" within
the meaning of s. 24(2) of the Act. It is true that the
Chief Settlement Commissioner had recorded a finding that
the company had not proved its title to any land in the area
now part of Pakistan and the allotment was "undeserved".
But this is not tantamount to a finding that the allotment
had been obtained by a false representation or fraud or
concealment of material facts. Such a finding is a
condition precedent for faking action under s. 24(2) of the
Act. The condition imposed by the section is mandatory and
in the absence of any such finding the Chief Settlement
Commissioner had no jurisdiction to cancel the allotment
made to the company under s. 24(2) of the Act. [537 A--D]
JUDGMENT:
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1576 of 1966.
Appeal from the judgment and ordered dated October 26.
1965 of the Punjab High Court in Letters Patent Appeal No.
174 of 1964.
Bishan Narain, S.K. Mehta and K.L. Mehta, for the
appellant.
Harbans Singh and R.N. Sachthey, for the respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
Ramaswami, J. In the month of August, 1942 the
appellant company (hereinafter called the Company) was
incorporated -with its registered office in the city of
Jullundur dealing in sale
535
and purchase of land as its substantial business. By a sale
deed executed on November 24, 1944 the company purchased 646
karnals, 9 marlas of land from Harjit Singh for a sum
of Rs. 32,326/-. The land was located in village Monanpura
of District Sheikupura, now in West Pakistan. Out of the
consideration for the sale, a sum of Rs. 9,000/’- was left
with the company for payment to the previous mortgagees and
the balance of the money was paid to Harjit Singh before the
Sub-Registrar at the time of registration. On the basis of
the registered sale deed the company was allotted 27
standard acres and 11 1/2 units of land village Bohani,
Tehsil Phagwara District Kapurthala in the year 1950 in lieu
of the land abandoned in Pakistan. A sanad no. K2/4/8 dated
March 9, 1950 was issued in favour of the company. There
was consolidation of holdings in village Bohani and as a
result of consolidation the area allotted to the company
came to 23 kanals and 5 marlas. Out of this the company
sold 9-1/2 kanals to Mohan Singh, a Jar of village Bohani
for Rs. 1900.00 by registered sale deed dated May 22, 1956.
Another portion of 220 kanals and 15 marlas was sold on
September 12, 1958 for Rs. 10,012/- to one Mehnga Singh and
his sons. It was later discovered that the company had been
allotted less area of land than it was entitled to as a
result of consolidation operations and so. an additional
area of 24 kanals was allotted to the company in village
Bohani to make up the deficiency. On August 30, 1960 the
Managing Officer, respondent no. 3, made a report, Annexure
C, to the Chief Settlement Commissioner, Respondent no. 2
recommending cancellation of the allotment of land to the
company and consequently the grant of permanent rights to
it. The company was heard by the Chief Settlement
Commissioner and thereafter the Chief Settlement
Commissioner rejected the registered sale deed and balance
sheets and relying on the jamabandi, annexure X, came to the
conclusion that at the time of partition the company did not
own any, land in Pakistan nor was it in occupation of any
such land. By his order dated February 27, 1961 respondent
no. 2 set aside the permanent rights acquired by the company
to the extent of 27 standard acres, 111/2 units and also
cancelled the quasi-permanent ‘allotment of the ,land made
in the name of the company. On March 29, 1961 a revision
petition was filed by the company to the Central Government,
respondent no. 1. But the revision petition was dismissed
on May 10, 1961. On June 8, 1961 the company filed a writ
petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution praying for
grant of a writ to quash the order of the Chief Settlement
Commissioner dated February 27, 1961. The writ petition was
allowed by Shamshat Bahadur, J. But the respondent took the
matter in appeal under el. 10 of Letters Patent to a
Division Bench which reversed the judgment of the learned
single Judge and ordered the writ petition to be dismissed.
536
Section 24 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and
Rehabilitation) Act, 1954 (44 of 1954) (hereinafter called
the Act) states:
“(1) The Chief Settlement Commissioner may
at any time call for the record o/any
proceeding under this Act in which a
Settlement Officer, an Assistant Settlement
Officer, an Assistant Settlement Commissioner,
an Additional Settlement Commissioner, a
Settlement Commissioner, a managing officer or
a managing corporation has passed an order for
the purpose of satisfying himself as to the
legality or propriety of any such order and
may pass such order in relation thereto as he
thinks fit.
(2) Without prejudice to the generality of
the foregoing power under sub-section (1 ), if
the Chief Settlement Commissioner is satisfied
that any order for payment of compensation to
a displaced person or any lease or
‘allotment granted to such a person has been
obtained by him by means of fraud, false
representation or concealment of any material
fact, then, notwithstanding anything contained
in this Act, the Chief Settlement Commissioner
may pass an order directing that no
compensation shall be paid to such a person or
reducing the amount of compensation to be paid
to him, or as the case may be, canceling the
lease or ‘allotment granted to him; ‘and if it
is found that a displaced person has been paid
compensation which is not payable to him, or
which is in excess of the amount payable to
him, Such amount or excess, as the case may
be, may on a certificate issued by the Chief
Settlement Commissioner be recovered in the
same manner as an arrear of land revenue.
In support of the appeal it was contended on behalf of the
company that the document described as jamabandi, annexure
II to writ petition, was not the jamabandi of the year 1946-
47 of the land in dispute and the Division Bench was in
error in holding that the Chief Settlement Commissioner
could properly rely upon annexure . It was pointed out that
annexure II was not the jamabandi for 1946-47 but it
consisted of three notes one saying “Maamur bai”, that is,
that there is no land of non-Muslims in the village. the
second note related to Kartar Chand and Gopal Dass who
embraced Islam and the third related to sale of his land by
Harjit Singh in favour of S.A. Latif. All these notes are
dated May 3, 1951. It was pointed out that these notes were
made on May 3,
537
1961 for the purposes of exchange of jamabandi and the
document did not depict the state of affairs as on August
15, 1947 which was the material date. It is not necessary
to examine this document in detail for we are of opinion
that the appeal must be allowed and the order of the Chief
Settlement Commissioner must be quashed on the ground that
there is no finding of the Chief Settlement Commissioner
that the Company had obtained allotment of the land “by
means of fraud, false representation or concealment of any
material fact” within the meaning of s. 24(2) of the Act.
It is true that the Chief Settlement Commissioner had
recorded a finding that the company had not proved its title
to any land in village Momonpura and the allotment was
“undeserved”. But this is not tantamount to a finding that
the allotment had been obtained by a false representation or
fraud or concealment of material facts. Such a finding is a
condition precedent for taking action under s. 24(2) of the
Act. The condition imposed by the section is mandatory and
in the absence of any such finding the Chief Settlement
Commissioner had ,no jurisdiction to cancel the allotment
made to the company under s. 24(2) of the Act. For these
reasons we hold that the appeal should be allowed and the
judgment of the Division Bench dated October 26, 1965 in
Letters Patent Appeal should be reversed and the judgment of
Shamshat Bahadur, J., dated November 28, 1963 quashing the
order of the Chief Settlement Commissioner dated February
27, 1961 should be restored.
The appeal is accordingly allowed with costs.
R.K.P.S.
Appeal allowed.
538