REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 5461 OF 2011
[Arising out of SLP (C) No. 14396 of 2010]
Jalandhar Improvement Trust .... Appellant
Versus
Vinod Kumar & Ors. .... Respondents
JUDGMENT
Dr. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA, J.
1. For the reasons stated in the application for condonation of
delay, we are of the view that there is sufficient cause for
such condonation. Accordingly, delay condoned.
2. Leave granted.
3. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated
30.04.2009 passed by the High Court of Punjab & Haryana
at Chandigarh in Civil Writ Petition No. 10203 of 2007,
whereby the High Court disposed of the writ petition by
remanding back the matter to the Settlement Commissioner
for considering the claims of the respondents while
maintaining status quo in the matter.
4. Brief facts leading to the filing of the present appeal are that
the land in dispute belongs to the State. It is averred by the
respondents that they have occupied the land in dispute in
the year 1947, measuring 2-1/2 kanals in Khasra No.
16693/6729 in the 55.0 Acres Development Scheme as they
were displaced persons from Pakistan. On the other hand
the appellant – Improvement Trust Jalandhar has stated that
respondents encroached the said land which belongs to the
Government.
5. An Award was passed on 05.01.1977 by the Land Acquisition
Collector, Jalandhar Improvement Trust in Land Acquisition
No. 1 of 1975-76 and in the said Award, it was stated that
the State Government (Local Government) vide their
notification No. 8080-3CI-75/21963 dated the 10th July,
1975, issued under Section 42 of the Punjab Town
Improvement Act, 1922, accorded sanction to the
Development Scheme for an area measuring approximately
Page 2 of 13
55.0 acres on Police Lines Road, behind Commissioner’s
Office, Jalandhar framed by the Jalandhar Improvement
Trust. The aforesaid Trust vide its Memorandum No.
JIT/3058 dated the 26th July, 1975, applied for the
acquisition of the non-evacuee and composite property
comprised in the Scheme under the Land Acquisition Act,
1894. It was also stated in the aforesaid award that
according to the acquisition file prepared by the revenue staff
of the Trust total area of the scheme works out to be 598
Kanal 2 Marlas and out of this area measuring 69 Kanals
and 2 Marlas belongs to the Improvement Trust, Jalandhar
itself. The aforesaid Award included the area in dispute
which is the subject matter of the present case.
6. The respondents, however, contended inter alia that they are
in occupation of the said land by way of evacuee property as
they were being displaced persons from Pakistan. The said
land was transferred to the Improvement Trust, Jalandhar
for the execution of 55.0 Acres Development Scheme
developed by the Punjab Government. The Land Acquisition
Collector vide its Award dated 5th January, 1977 held that
the land occupied by the respondents had already been
Page 3 of 13
received by the Improvement Trust, Jalandhar in the
package deal.
7. Respondents filed an application for grant of proprietary
rights in respect of land measuring 2-1/2 kanals in Khasra
No. 16693/6729 in the 55.0 Acres Development Scheme.
However, the application filed by the respondents for grant of
proprietary rights was dismissed by the Naib Tehsildar (S),
M.O. Jalandhar on 03.08.1981 on the ground that the
aforesaid area had already been acquired by the
Improvement Trust Jalandhar and that it was not an evacuee
property.
8. The respondents then filed appeals before the Settlement
Commissioner, Punjab, Rehabilitation Department,
Jalandhar against the order dated 03.08.1981 which were
accepted by the Settlement Commissioner vide its order
dated 5.10.1981 and remanded the matter to the Tehsildar
(S)-cum-M.O., Jalandhar for fresh decision, after hearing the
respondents.
9. In the meantime the predecessor-in-interest of the
respondents Nos. 1 & 2 filed a civil suit seeking for
Page 4 of 13
injunction restraining the appellant herein from
dispossessing the predecessor-in-interest from the land
illegally, unlawfully or by force. The Trial Court, namely, the
Sub Judge passed an order in the said suit that the plaintiff
would not be dispossessed from the suit property otherwise
than in due course of law. The said order of the Trial Court
was also upheld by the Additional District Judge, Jalandhar
vide his judgment dated 18.01.1985.
10.Subsequent to the aforesaid order, an application under
Sections 5 and 7 of the Punjab Public Premises Land
[Eviction and Rent Recovery] Act No. 31 of 1973 [hereinafter
referred to as the “Eviction Act”] was filed by the appellant
initiating a proceeding for eviction of the respondents. The
competent authority issued notice to the respondents and at
the stage when the said proceeding was at the stage of
evidence, the file of the case lost, consequent upon which the
proceeding was stopped.
11.In the meantime the respondents filed a Writ Petition before
the Punjab and Haryana High Court contending inter alia
that the aforesaid land is an evacuee property and therefore
Page 5 of 13
the aforesaid initiation of proceedings under Sections 5 and
7 of the Punjab Public Premises Land [Eviction and Rent
Recovery] Act No. 31 of 1973 is without jurisdiction.
12. The appellant herein filed a counter affidavit in the said writ
petition. The High Court by its order dated 12.05.2006
disposed of the said writ petition by holding that if the
Settlement Commissioner finds that the claim of the
respondents is without any merit and they are not entitled
to any alternative sites/rehabilitation then they would also
have no action to claim to retain the sites which are under
their possession. Pursuant to the aforesaid directions of the
High Court the matter was placed before the Sub Divisional
Magistrate, Jalandhar by the respondents herein for
allotment of property comprising in Khasra No. 16693/6729
situated in Bhisti Darwaja, Civil Lines, Jalandhar.
13.The Sub Divisional Magistrate, Jalandhar passed an order
dated 27.04.2007 holding that the case could not be decided
in view of repeal of Displaced Persons (Compensation &
Rehabilitation) Act, 1954 by the Ministry of Law and Justice,
Legislative Department, New Delhi.
Page 6 of 13
14.Thereupon, the respondents herein filed a separate writ
petition for quashing the order dated 27.04.2007 passed by
the Settlement Commissioner which was registered as 10203
of 2007. In the said writ petition the State of Punjab filed its
counter affidavit in which it was averred that the
respondents have already transferred their land which was
being used as residential. With regard to the remaining land
being used for Dairy, it was stated that they are not using
the said land as the Dairy business has been shifted to
Jamsher Tehsil Jalondha in the light of the decision of
Municipal Corporation of Jalandhar wherein the respondents
have been allotted four different plots bearing Nos. 139 to
142 vide letter dated 12.03.2008.
15. The High Court passed an order dated 30.04.2009 which is
the impugned order herein and whereby the High Court
remanded back the matter to the Settlement Commissioner
once again to consider the claims of the respondents and
also stayed their dispossession till the matter is decided by
the Settlement Commissioner.
Page 7 of 13
16.Being aggrieved by the said order the present appeal was
filed on which we heard the learned counsel appearing for
the parties. Counsel appearing for the parties have taken us
meticulously through the entire records.
17.There can be no dispute with regard to the fact that the land
in dispute is a part of the Award and the same belongs to the
Punjab Town Improvement/Government being a part of
development scheme. The respondents claimed to be in
possession of the said land as an evacuee property. If in
case the respondents were in possession of the said land as
an evacuee property and not as encroachers meaning
thereby holding right and title to hold and possess such
land, they were required to challenge the Award passed on
05.01.1977. The said Award having not been challenged by
the respondents the same has become final and binding on
all concerned.
18.The civil suit filed by the predecessor-in-interest of the
respondents Nos. 1 & 2 was disposed of by the trial court,
namely, the Sub Judge with a direction that the plaintiff
would not be dispossessed from the suit property otherwise
Page 8 of 13
than in due course of law as respondents were in possession
of the land, may be as encroachers. Consequent thereto, the
appellant has moved the competent authority for initiation of
proceedings under the Punjab Public Premises Land
(Eviction and Rent Recovery) Act, 1973. In the said
proceedings all the issues could be urged as to whether or
not the respondents are owners and have their rights over
the disputed land and also as to whether or not appellant is
owner of the land and as to whether or not the respondents
are authorised occupants or unauthorised occupants of the
land. It was also averred clearly in the writ petition and also
in this appeal that the respondents have been allotted four
alternative plots in lieu of their occupation of the land which
is part of the disputed land. The aforesaid fact although has
been disputed by the respondents in their counter affidavit
but no documentary evidence has been placed on record to
indicate that the aforesaid land was not allotted by the
Government to the respondents and that they had purchased
the land by paying full consideration thereof from the
competent authority.
Page 9 of 13
19.Be that as it may, as to whether or not the respondents are
lawful owners of the land in question or they are mere
encroachers and liable to be evicted would be gone into and
decided although in a summary manner in the proceedings
which were initiated against them.
20. Since the Evacuee Property Act, 1950 has been repealed, we
see no justification in the order dated 30.04.2009 passed by
the High Court remanding back the matter to the Settlement
Commissioner to consider the claim of the respondents once
again inasmuch as the issue as to whether or not
respondents are authorised or unauthorised occupants of
the land in dispute and as to whether or not the respondents
are entitled to alternative plots or rehabilitation are matters
which can be adjudicated upon separately in accordance
with law but not in the manner as suggested by the High
Court. Even if respondents are entitled to rehabilitation
under any law the same has to be established by due process
of law. But they cannot claim any land within the acquired
area/55.0 Acres of Development Scheme but in case an order
is passed in their favour, they would be rehabilitated in
alternative plot(s). Therefore, they would have to prove their
Page 10 of 13
case before the competent authority and not before the
Settlement Commissioner. However, in order to comply with
the directions of the Civil Court and also for his eviction in
accordance with law, proceeding has to be initiated under
the Public Premises Eviction Act, which stands initiated, and
therefore, the said proceeding should be continued till the
same would come to a logical end.
21. The respondents have not challenged the award and
therefore the aforesaid Award has become final and binding.
Therefore, we set aside the order passed by the High Court
and hold that the proceedings initiated against the
respondents under Sections 5 and 7 of the Eviction Act
would be allowed to be continued and the same shall be
brought to a logical end as expeditiously as possible.
22.The land in question is a part of the Development Plan and
therefore the matter requires urgent consideration. In any
case the land in question being a part of the Development
Plan cannot be left to the occupation of the respondents if
they are held to be encroachers by passing an interim order.
Therefore, in our considered opinion the proceedings to
Page 11 of 13
adjudicate upon and decide as to whether or not respondents
are authorised or unauthorised occupants of the land in
dispute should be completed and brought to an end. As to
whether or not the respondents are encroachers would also
be decided in the said proceeding. All other claims
regarding entitlement of alternative plot or rehabilitation and
whether or not such land is already allotted as rehabilitation
package could be raised by the respondents only after the
proceeding initiated under the Eviction Act is finalised and
also depending on its outcome.
23.Six months time is granted to the competent authority to
complete proceedings initiated under Sections 5 and 7 of the
Eviction Act, so that, the matter is disposed of as
expeditiously as possible as the same is pending for a very
long time.
24. Therefore, the present appeal is allowed and the order passed
by the High Court accordingly stands quashed. We leave the
parties to bear their own costs.
……………………………………………J
Page 12 of 13
[Dr. Mukundakam Sharma]
……………………………………………J
[Anil R. Dave]
New Delhi,
July 15, 2011.
Page 13 of 13