{"id":128175,"date":"1978-09-02T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1978-09-01T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sadhu-singh-deceased-ors-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-2-september-1978"},"modified":"2015-08-17T23:15:59","modified_gmt":"2015-08-17T17:45:59","slug":"sadhu-singh-deceased-ors-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-2-september-1978","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sadhu-singh-deceased-ors-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-2-september-1978","title":{"rendered":"Sadhu Singh (Deceased) & Ors vs Union Of India & Ors on 2 September, 1978"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Sadhu Singh (Deceased) & Ors vs Union Of India & Ors on 2 September, 1978<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 1979 AIR 1609, \t\t 1979 SCR (3)1279<\/div>\n
Author: J Singh<\/div>\n
Bench: Singh, Jaswant<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nSADHU SINGH (DECEASED) & ORS.\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nUNION OF INDIA & ORS.\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT02\/09\/1978\n\nBENCH:\nSINGH, JASWANT\nBENCH:\nSINGH, JASWANT\nPATHAK, R.S.\nSEN, A.P. (J)\n\nCITATION:\n 1979 AIR 1609\t\t  1979 SCR  (3)1279\n\n\nACT:\n     Displaced Persons\t(Compensation and Rehabilitation Act\n1954-S.\t 19-Land   allotted  to\t displaced  person-Allotment\ncancelled without  complying with  provisions  of  the\tAct-\nValidity of.\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\n     The respondent,  who was  a displaced  person from West\nPakistan, was  allotted certain\t land in India and was given\nits possession.\t At the time of consolidation of holdings in\n1960 the  Consolidation Officer included a part of this land\ncomprising 13-odd  acres in  the area  of the Custodian. The\nrespondent's representations  protesting against  the action\nof the\tConsolidation Officer having failed at the different\nlevels, the  respondent moved  the High Court under Art. 226\nof the\tConstitution. The  High Court set aside the impugned\norders of  the Consolidation Officer on the ground that they\nwere wholly  without jurisdiction  and\tthat  the  concerned\nofficer was  not authorised  to allot  to the  appellant the\nland which  was already\t comprised  in\ta  subsisting  valid\nallotment made to the respondent.\n     On the  question whether  the land in dispute which had\nalready stood  allotted in favour of the respondent could be\nallotted  in   favour  of   others  without  notice  to\t the\nrespondent and\twithout affording  an opportunity  of  being\nheard.\n^\n     HELD: The respondent had succeeded in establishing that\npermanent proprietary  allotment of  the land in dispute was\nvalidly made  in his  favour. Therefore\t the respondent\t had\nenforceable right in respect of the land and it could not be\nallotted in favour of others. [1292F-G]\n     Although in  certain contingencies\t it would be open to\nthe Managing  Officer or  the Managing Corporation to cancel\nthe  allotment\t under\ts.   19\t of  the  Displaced  Persons\n(Compensation and  Rehabilitation) Act,\t 1954 read with Rule\n102   of    the\t  Displaced    Persons\t (Compensation\t and\nRehabilitation) Rules  1955, it\t can not  be done unless the\nallottee is  given a  reasonable opportunity of being heard.\n[1293F]\n     In the  instant case  no  action  for  cancellation  of\nallotment was  taken under the provisions of the Act and the\nRules. The action of the Naib Tehsildar-cum-Managing Officer\nin allotting  to the  appellant the  land which\t had already\nstood in  the name  of the respondent without complying with\nthe relevant provisions of the Act was in flagrant violation\nof the provisions of the law. Therefore, the impugned orders\nwere manifestly\t illegal, arbitrary and unjust and could not\nbe sustained. [1293H]\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
     CIVIL APPELLATE  JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 2419 of
\n1968.\n<\/p>\n
     From the Judgment and Order dated 25-9-67 of the Punjab
\nand Haryana High Court in Civil Writ No. 1630\/62.\n<\/p>\n
1280<\/span><\/p>\n
     S. K.  Mehta, P. N. Puri, K. R. Nagaraja and G. Lal for
\nthe Appellants.\n<\/p>\n
     K. L.  Narula, District  Attorney, Haryana, R. B. Datar
\nand Girish Chandra for Respondent No.1.\n<\/p>\n
     E. C. Agarwala for Respondent No. 14<\/span><\/p>\n
     (Rest of the Respondents Ex-parte)
\n     The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
\n     JASWANT SINGH,  J.-The litigation\tculminating  in\t the
\npresent appeal\t(by certificate\t under Article\t133(1)(b) of
\nthe Constitution) which is directed against the judgment and
\norder dated  September 25,  1967, of  the Punjab and Haryana
\nHigh  Court  in\t C.W.N.\t 1630  of  1962\t setting  aside\t the
\nallotment dated\t May 23,  1960 made  by Naib  Tehsildar-cum-
\nManaging Officer,  Fatehabad, District\tHissar in  favour of
\nMadan Mohan  and others, and orders dated April 18, 1962 and
\nJuly 21,  1962 of  the Assistant Settlement Commissioner and
\nChief Settlement  Commissioner respectively  on the  finding
\nthat “no  part of  the holding which formed part of the land
\nallotted to respondent No. 14, Mehta Lal Chand, (hereinafter
\nreferred  to   as  ‘the\t  respondent’)\tcould,\t during\t the
\nsubsistence of\tsuch allotment and without its cancellation,
\nbe allotted to any one else” has had a very chequered career
\nextending over\twell nigh  two decades.\t It appears that the
\nrespondent who is a displaced person from Pakistan was found
\nentitled to  an allotment  of 113 standard acres and 3 units
\nof land in lieu of 120 acres of land held by him as owner in
\nBhawalpur (Pakistan). Against the aforesaid entitlement, the
\nrespondent was\tallotted 90  standard acres  and 6  units of
\nevacuee land  between 1953 and 1958 in different villages of
\nTehsil\tFatehabad,   District  Hissar  including  two  areas
\nmeasuring (1)  13 standard  acres and 3 1\/2 units and (2) 13
\nstandard acres\tand  13\t 1\/2  units  in\t village  Bahmniwala
\nallotment of which was made on March 1, 1957 and October 10,
\n1958 respectively.  Pursuant to\t the above  allotment of  13
\nstandard acres and 3 1\/2 units made in his favour in village
\nBahmniwala vide\t Sanad dated  March 6, 1957 (Annexure ‘C’ to
\nthe writ  petition), the  respondent was given possession of
\nthe plots  of land  comprised in  khasra Nos. 1411 min, 1412
\nmin, 1472 min, 1241 min, 1242, 1243, 1244, 1245, 1246, 1247,
\n1621, 1622  to 1635  (14 khasras),  1642, 1644, 1645 on June
\n17, 1957.  The respondent  continued to remain in possession
\nof  the\t  aforesaid  plots  of\tland  till  Rabi  1960\twhen
\nconsolidation  of   holdings  were   undertaken\t in  village
\nBahmniwala. Without  caring to look into the revenue record,
\nthe Consolidation  Officer instead  of showing the aforesaid
\nallotted area in Bahmniwala in the name
\n1281<\/span>
\nof the\trespondent included the same in the kurrah (area) of
\nthe Custodian.\tOn coming  to know  about this irregularity,
\nthe respondent\tfiled objections  before  the  Consolidation
\nOfficer and  requested\thim  to\t rectify  the  mistake.\t The
\nConsolidation Officer  by his  order dated  March  23,\t1960
\nconsigned the  objection petition  of the  respondent to the
\nrecord room  observing that  in the  absence of the relevant
\nrecord which,  as per  the report of the Wasal Baqi Nawis is
\nhas been  despatched to Jullundur for checking purposes, the
\nfactum\tof  allotment  cannot  be  verified  and  as  it  is
\nnecessary to  take proceedings\tunder section  21(2) of\t the
\nConsolidation of  Holdings Act in village Bahmniwala in this
\nvery month,  the record\t cannot be  awaied any\tfurther. The
\nConsolidation  Officer\t further  observed   that  since  it
\nappeared from a perusal of the copy of the Sanad (allotment)
\nthat the  entire kurrah\t consisted of  almost  evacuee\tland
\nbearing khasra\tnumbers mentioned in the Sanad of allotment,
\nthe respondent\tcould, on the receipt of the record, get the
\narea at\t the place where, according to him, the evacuee land
\nmentioned by  him in  his application  was situate.  By\t his
\norder dated  May 23,  1960, the\t Naib Tehsildar-cum-Managing
\nOfficer, Fatehabad,  however, made  the following allotments
\nout of\tan area\t of 58 standard acres and 7 units situate in
\nBahmniwala  which   included  the   khasra  numbers  already
\nallotted to  the respondent  but which according to the Fard
\nFazla (statement  of surplus area) prepared by the concerned
\nPatwari appeared to be available for allotment:-\n<\/p>\n
     In favour of Bagga Singh, S\/o Pokhar Singh: 5 1\/2 units
\n     ”\t ”  ” Inder Singh, S\/o Mit Singh\t: 7 Standard
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t acres 1
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t 1\/2unit
\n     ”\t”  ” M. dan Mohan Singh, S\/o Puran Singh,
\n     ”\t”  ” Odin Singh and Harduman Singh,\t 20 Standerd
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t acres 2
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t units
\n\t    Sons of Madan Mohan Singh,
\n\t    Predecessor-in-interest of
\n\t    the appellants
\n     Aggrieved by  this\t order\tof  the\t Naib-Tehsildar-cum-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
Managing Officer  which\t adversely  affected  the  allotment
\nalready made  in his  favour, the  respondent  preferred  an
\nappeal to the Assistant Settlement Commissioner (with powers
\nof Settlement  Commissioner), Punjab,  Jullundur  contending
\nthat 13 standard acres and 3 1\/2 units of land in Bahmniwala
\nallotted to him in 1957 had been erroneously included in the
\n‘kurrah’ of  the Custodian  at the time of the Consolidation
\noperations and\tthat  the  same\t had  now  been\t erroneously
\nallotted without  his knowledge to Bagga Singh, Inder Singh,
\nMadan
\n1282<\/span>
\nMohan Singh  and his  sons. Curiously  enough, the Assistant
\nSettlement   Commissioner   (with   powers   of\t  Settlement
\nCommissioner) while conceding that the aforesaid 13 standard
\nacres and 3 1\/2 units and 13 standard acres and 13 1\/2 units
\nin  village  Bahmniwala\t were  allotted\t in  favour  of\t the
\nrespondent  on\t June  17,   1957  and\t October  10,\t1958
\nrespectively and  that there  was no  cancellation order  in
\nrespect\t thereof  and  that  the  consolidation\t authorities
\nshould not  have withdrawn  the area  from the\tname of\t the
\nrespondent who had through no fault of his been put to a lot
\nof difficulty  and that\t it was\t just and  proper  that\t the
\nmatter of allotment to which he was entitled be settled once
\nfor all in such a way that whole of the area is given to him
\npermanently in one village, rejected the appeal by his order
\ndated April 18, 1962 observing that there was no good ground
\nfor interfering\t with the  allotment of\t the appellants\t and
\nthat it would be open to the respondent to apply to the Naib
\nTehsildar-cum-Managing Officer\tto make\t up the shortfall in
\nhis area  by allotment\tof some\t other\tland  which  may  be
\navailable in  that village.  Dissatisfied with\tthe order of
\nthe Assistant  Settlement Commissioner,\t the respondent took
\nthe   matter   in   revision   to   the\t  Deputy   Secretary
\n(Rehabilitation)  exercising   the  powers   of\t the   Chief
\nSettlement Commissioner\t who also  after paying lip sympathy
\ndismissed the  revision on  the\t ground\t that  it  was\ttime
\nbarred. Aggieved  by these  orders, the respondent moved the
\nHigh Court  of Punjab  and Haryana by means of the aforesaid
\npetition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution. The
\nHigh Court  by its  judgment and  order dated  September 25,
\n1962 set  side the  aforesaid thee  impugned orders  holding
\nthat  they   were  wholly   without  jurisdiction   and\t the
\nTehsildar-cum-Managing Officer\twas not\t authorised to allot
\nto the\tappellants the land which was already comprised in a
\nsubsisting valid  allotment of the respondent. It is against
\nthis judgment  and order  of the High Court that the present
\nappeal is directed.\n<\/p>\n
     On the  appeal coming up before us on July 19, 1978, we
\nheard counsel  for the\tparties at  considerable length\t and
\nfelt it\t necessary for clarification of certain points which
\nhad been  left vague  the courts below to have before us the
\nentire record  relating to  the allotment  made in favour of
\nthe respondent. Accordingly, with the consent of counsel for
\nthe parties,  we adjourned  the\t hearing  of  the  case\t and
\ndirected  the\tUnion  of   Indian  to\tinstruct  the  Chief
\nsettlement Commissioner,  State of Haryana, either to appear
\nhimself before\tus with all the relevant record relating not
\nonly to\t the allotment\toriginally made\t in  favour  of\t the
\nrespondent vide\t Sanad No.  HS4\/ 1957\/11202  dated March  1,
\n1957  but  also\t with  the  record  pertaining\tto  all\t the
\nsubsequent allotments made in his favour upto date or
\n1283<\/span>
\ncause the  appearance of  a  responsible  officer  with\t the
\naforesaid record.  To obviate delay in disposal of the case,
\nwe also\t directed the  Chief Settlement Commissioner to have
\nin readiness  a factual\t statement showing  the net  area in
\nterms of standard acres to which the respondent was entitled
\nas  a\tdisplaced  person,  the\t particulars  of  the  field
\ninitially  allotted  in\t his  favour  including\t the  survey
\nnumbers and  the extent\t of the area thereof, particulars of
\nthe  survey   numbers  of   the\t fields\t taken\tout  of\t the
\nrespondent’s  allotment\t  vide\tNaib  Tehsildar-cum-Managing
\nOfficer, Tehsil\t Fatehabad’s order  dated May  23, 1960\t and
\nparticulars of\tall the subsequent allotments made upto date
\nin the respondent’s favour in different villages of District
\nHissar including  village Bahmniwala  as also  the extent of
\nthe  allotted\tarea  which  is\t at  present  held  by\thim.
\nAccordingly, the  Chief Settlement  Commissioner has  caused
\nthe attendance\tof K.  L. Narula,  Deputy District Attorney,
\nRehabilitation Department,  Haryana, Chandigarh who has also
\nfiled  an   affidavit  relating\t  to  the  points  on  which
\ninformation was\t required by  us. We have perused the entire
\nmaterial and have again heard counsel for all the sides.\n<\/p>\n
     Two questions  arise for determination in this case-(1)
\nwhether the  respondent acquired  any enforceable right as a
\nresult of  the allotment made in his favour on March 1, 1957
\nand delivery  in pursuance  thereof to\thim of possession of
\nthe aforesaid  khasra numbers  on  June\t 17,  1957  and\t (2)
\nwhether the  parcels of land which already stood allotted in
\nfavour of the respondent vide allotment order dated March 1,
\n1957 could  be allotted\t by the\t Naib Tehsildar-cum-Managing
\nOfficer, Fatehabad in favour of Madan Mohan Singh and others
\nwithout notice\tto the\trespondent and without affording him
\nin opportunity of being heard.\n<\/p>\n
     The first question has to be considered in the light of
\nthe judgment  of this  Court  in  Amar\tSingh  v.  Custodian
\nEvacuee Property,  Punjab<\/a> where\t the whole  history  of\t the
\nlegislative measures  devised  from  time  to  time  in\t the
\nerstwhile State\t of Punjab  to combat  the gigantic problems
\ncreated as a result of the mass migration of non-Muslim land
\nholders to  East Punjab is traced. A perusal of the judgment
\nreveals that  in exercise of the rule making power vested in
\nit under  clauses (f) and (ff) of sub-section (2) of section
\n22 of the East Punjab Evacuees’ (Administration of Property)
\nAct, 1947  (E. P.  Act No.  XIV of 1947) as amended in 1948,
\nthe Punjab  Government issued  Notification Nos.  4891-S and
\n4892-S on July 8, 1949
\n1284<\/span>
\nsetting out  the  conditions  regulating  allotment  by\t the
\nCustodian of  the  land\t which\tvested\tin  him.  The  first
\nincident of  allotment deducible  from the  notification  is
\nhereditability\tof   the  rights   of  the   allottee  which
\nconstitute  quasi-permanent   allotment.  The  statement  of
\nconditions published  under  Notification  Nos.\t 4891-S\t and
\n4892-S of  July 8,  1949  was  continued  in  force  as\t the
\nAdministration of  Evacuee Property  (Rural) Rules framed by
\nthe Provincial\tGovernment under  sub-section (2) of section
\n53  of\tthe  Central  Ordinance\t No.  XXVII  of\t 1949  under
\ndelegation from\t the Central  Government under\tNotification
\nNo. 3094-A\/Cus\/49  dated December 2, 1949 subject to certain
\nmodifications and  amendments.\tOn  repeal  of\tthe  Central
\nOrdinance by  Central Act  XXXI of 1950, the aforesaid rules
\nwere continued\tby virtue of section 58 of the Act as though
\nmade under that Act. Later in exercise of the delegated rule
\nmaking power  vested  in  the  Provincial  Government  under
\nsection 55  of the Central Act, the Punjab Government framed
\nrules dated  August  29,  1951\tentitled  “Instructions\t for
\nreview and  revision of\t land allotment”  which affected the
\nrules of  July 8,  1949 only  to the  extent that  they were
\ninconsistent with  the earlier\trules. A  reference  to\t the
\nearlier and subsequent rules would show that the later rules
\ndo not\tconcern any  of the  matters provided by the earlier
\nrules of  1949 (and  1950) excepting  as regards  resumption
\nwhich virtually\t is cancellation  of allotment. The position
\nthat emerges  from the\tforegoing is that the rules of July,
\n1949  continued\t  in  force   except  to   the\t extent\t  of
\ninconsistency. (The  next set  of rules are those made under
\nCentral Act  XXXI of 1950). Then came the rules dated August
\n29, 1951  made by  the Punjab  Government in exercise of the
\npowers delegated  to it\t by  the  Central  Government  under
\nsection 55(1)  of the  Central Act  XXXI of 1950. It will be
\nseen that the rules of August 29, 1951 are substantially the
\nsame as\t those enumerated  in clause  (6) of  July  8,\t1949
\nnotification as\t regards resumption  and only supplement the
\nnotification of\t July 8, 1949 as regards eviction in certain
\ncontingencies. The  rights  and\t incidents  enjoyed  by\t the
\nallottees under the quasi-permanent scheme introduced by the
\naforesaid notification\tof July\t 8, 1949  are catalouged  at
\npage 823  of the  aforesaid judgment  of this  Court in Amar
\nSingh v.  Custodian, Evacuee  Property, Punjab<\/a> (supra). They
\nare:\n<\/p>\n
\t  “1. The  allottee is\tentitled to right of use and
\n     occupation of  the property  until\t such  time  as\t the
\n     property  remains\tvested\tin  the\t Custodian.  [Clause
\n     3(1).]\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t  2. The  benefit of  such right  will ensure to his
\n     heirs and successors. (Definition of ‘allottee’).\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t  3. His  enjoyment of\tthe property is on the basis
\n     of paying\tland-revenue thereupon\tand ceases  for\t the
\n     time being.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
1285<\/span><\/p>\n
     Additional\t rent\tmay  be\t  fixed\t thereupon   by\t the
\n     Custodian. If  and when  he does  so, the\tallottee  is
\n     bound to pay the same. [Clause 3(3).]\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t  4.  He   is  entitled\t to  quiet  and\t undisturbed
\n     enjoyment of  the property\t during that period. (Clause\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     8).\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t  5. He is entitled to make improvements on the land
\n     with the  assent of  the Custodian\t and is\t entitled to
\n     compensation in  the  manner  provided  in\t the  Punjab
\n     Tenancy Act. (Clause 7).\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t  6. He is entiled to exchange the whole or any part
\n     of the  land for other evacuee land with the consent of
\n     the Custodian. (Clause 5).\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t  7. He\t is entitled  to lease the land for a period
\n     not exceeding three years without the permission of the
\n     Custodian and  for longer\tperiod with his consent. But
\n     he is  not entitled  to transfer  his rights  by way of
\n     sale, gift,  will, mortgage  or other private contract.
\n     [Clause 4(c).]\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t  8. His  rights in the allotment are subject to the
\n     fairly extensive  powers of  cancellation under the Act
\n     and rules\tas then\t in force prior to July 22, 1952, on
\n     varied administrative  considerations and\tactions such
\n     as the  following (Clause\t6 and  subsequent  rules  of
\n     1951):-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t  (a)  That the\t allotment is contrary to the orders
\n\t       of the  Punjab Government or the instructions
\n\t       of the  Financial  Commissioner,\t Relief\t and
\n\t       Rehabilitation, or  of the Custodian, Evacuee
\n\t       Property, Punjab;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t  (b)  That the claims of other parties with respect
\n\t       to the land have been established or accepted
\n\t       by  the\t Custodian  or\t the  Rehabilitation
\n\t       Authority;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t  (c)  That it\tis necessary  or expedient to cancel
\n\t       or vary\tthe terms  of an  allotment for\t the
\n\t       implementation of resettlement schemes and\/or
\n\t       rules framed  by the State Government; or for
\n\t       such distribution  amongst displaced  persons
\n\t       as appears  to the  Custodian to be equitable
\n\t       and proper;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
1286<\/span><\/p>\n
\t  (d)  That it\tis necessary  or expedient to cancel
\n\t       or vary\tthe terms  of an  allotment for\t the
\n\t       preservation, or\t the proper  administration,
\n\t       or the  management of such property or in the
\n\t       interests   of\tproper\t rehabilitation\t  of
\n\t       displaced persons.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
Then came  the two  Notifications Nos.\tSRO 129 dt. July 22,
\n1952 and  SRO 351 dated Feb. 13, 1953 amending and recasting
\nsub-rule (6)  of Rule  14 of  the Central  Rules of  1950 as
\nunder:\n<\/p>\n
\t  “(6) Notwithstanding\tanything contained  in\tthis
\n     rule, the\tCustodian of Evacuee Property in each of the
\n     States of\tPunjab and  Patiala and\t East Punjab  States
\n     Union shall  not exercise\tthe power  of cancelling any
\n     allotment\tof   rural  Evacuee  property  on  a  quasi-
\n     permanent basis,  or varying  the\tterms  of  any\tsuch
\n     allotment, except in the following circumstances:\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t  (i)  where the  allotment was\t made  although\t the
\n\t       allottee\t owned\t no  agricultural   land  in
\n\t       Pakistan;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t  (ii) where  the  allottee  has  obtained  land  in
\n\t       excess of  the area  to which he was entitled
\n\t       under  the   scheme  of\t allotment  of\tland
\n\t       prevailing at the time of allotment;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t  (iii)where the  allotment is\tto be  cancelled  or
\n\t       varied-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t  (a)  in  accordance\twith  an  order\t made  by  a
\n\t       competent authority  under section  8 of\t the
\n\t       East Punjab  Refugees (Registration  of\tLand
\n\t       Claims) Act, 1948;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t  (b)  on account  of the failure of the allottee to
\n\t       take  possession\t  of  the  allotted  evacuee
\n\t       property within\tsix months  of the  date  of
\n\t       allotment;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t  (c)  in consequence  of a  voluntary surrender  of
\n\t       the allotted evacuee property, or a voluntary
\n\t       exchange with  other available  rural evacuee
\n\t       property, or  a\tmutual\texchange  with\tsuch
\n\t       other available property;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t  (d)  in accordance  with any\tgeneral\t or  special
\n\t       order of the Central Government;
\n\t  Provided that\t where an  allotment is cancelled or
\n     varied  under   clause  (ii),  the\t allottee  shall  be
\n     entitled to retain such portion of the land to which he
\n     would have\t been entitled\tunder the  scheme of  quasi-
\n     permanent allotment of land;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t  Provided further  that nothing  in  this  sub-rule
\n     shall apply to any application for revision, made under
\n     section 26 or
\n1287<\/span>
\n     section 27\t of the\t Act, within  the  prescribed  time,
\n     against an\t order passed  by a  lower authority  on  or
\n     before 22nd July, 1952.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     Thus the  power of resumption or cancellation of quasi-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
permanent allotment was restricted and reduced.\n<\/p>\n
     The next  legislative measure  is the Displaced Persons
\n(Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954 (Act No. XLIV of
\n1954), important  provisions whereof  which may be useful in
\ndealing with  the first\t question may  be noticed. Section 4
\nprovides for  the time, the manner and the form of making an
\napplication for payment of compensation.\n<\/p>\n
     Section 10\t of the\t Act inter alia lays down that where
\nany immovable  property has  been leased  or allotted  to  a
\ndisplaced person by the Custodian under conditions published
\nby the\tNotification of\t the Government of Punjab No. 4891-S
\nor 4892-S  dated July  8, 1949 and such property is acquired
\nunder the  provisions of  the Act  and\tforms  part  of\t the
\ncompensation pool, the displaced person shall so long as the
\nproperty remains  vested in the Central Government, continue
\nin possession  of such\tproperty on  the same  conditions on
\nwhich he  held the  property immediately  before the date of
\nthe  acquisition.  It  further\tprovides  that\tthe  Central
\nGovernment may for the purpose of payment of compensation to
\nsuch displaced persons transfer to him such property on such
\nforms and conditions as may be prescribed.\n<\/p>\n
     Section 12 provides:-\n<\/p>\n
\t  “12.(1) If  the Central  Government is  of opinion
\n     that it  is necessary  to acquire\tany evacuee property
\n     for a  public purpose,  being a  purpose connected with
\n     the relief\t and rehabilitation  of\t displaced  persons,
\n     including payment\tof compensation to such persons, the
\n     Central Government may at any time acquire such evacuee
\n     property  by  publishing  in  the\tofficial  gazette  a
\n     notification to  the effect that the Central Government
\n     has  decided   to\tacquire\t such  evacuee\tproperty  in
\n     pursuance of this section.\n<\/p>\n
\t  (2) On  the publication  of a\t notification  under
\n     sub-section (1),  the right,  title and interest of any
\n     evacuee  in  the  evacuee\tproperty  specified  in\t the
\n     notification shall,  on and  from the  beginning of the
\n     date on  which the\t notification  is  so  published  be
\n     extinguished and the evacuee pro-\n<\/p>\n
1288<\/span><\/p>\n
     perty shall  vest absolutely  in the Central Government
\n     free from all encumbrances.\n<\/p>\n
\t  (3) .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ..”\n<\/p>\n
     It may  be noted  that by\tvirtue of Central Government
\nNotification No. S.R.O. 697 dated March 24, 1955, under sub-
\nsection\t (1)  of  this\tsection\t 12,  all  evacuee  property
\nallotted under the Punjab Government Notification dated July
\n8, 1949\t was acquired  by the  Central Government  excepting
\ncertain specified categories in respect of which proceedings
\nwere pending.\n<\/p>\n
     Section 13\t which deals  with compensation\t for evacuee
\nproperty acquired says:\n<\/p>\n
\t  “13.\tThere\tshall  be   paid   to\tan   evacuee
\n     compensation in  respect of his property acquired under
\n     section 12\t in accordance\twith such  principles and in
\n     such  manner   as\tmay   be  agreed  upon\tbetween\t the
\n     Governments of India and Pakistan.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     Section 14\t which\tprovides  for  the  constitution  of
\ncompensation pool runs thus:\n<\/p>\n
\t  “14.\t(1)   For  the\t purpose   of\tpayment\t  of
\n     compensation and  rehabilitation  grants  to  displaced
\n     persons, there shall be constituted a compensation pool
\n     which shall cosist of:\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t  (a)  all evacuee  property acquired  under section
\n\t       12, including  the sale\tproceeds of any such
\n\t       property and  all profits and income accruing
\n\t       from such property;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t  (b)  such cash  balances lying  with the Custodian
\n\t       as may,\tby order  of the Central Government,
\n\t       be transferred to the compensation pool;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t  (c)  such contributions,  in any  form whatsoever,
\n\t       as may  be made\tto the\tcompensation pool by
\n\t       the   Central   Government   or\t any   State
\n\t       Government;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t  (d)  such other assets as may be prescribed.
\n\t  (2)  The  compensation  pool\tshall  vest  in\t the
\n\t       Central Government free from all encumbrances
\n\t       and shall  be utilised in accordance with the
\n\t       provisions of  this Act\tand the\t rules\tmade
\n\t       thereunder.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     Section 16 authorised the Central Government to appoint
\nManaging Officers  or constitute  Managing Corporations\t for
\nthe custody, management and disposal of compensation pool so
\nthat it\t may be\t effectively used  in  accordance  with\t the
\nprovisions of the Act.\n<\/p>\n
1289<\/span><\/p>\n
     Section  40   enables   the   Central   Government\t  by
\nnotification in\t the official gazette to make rules. Whereas
\nsub-section (1)\t of the section confers general power on the
\nCentral Government  to make  rules to carry out the purposes
\nof the\tAct, sub-section  (2) of the Section particularities
\nthe subjects  on which\trules may  be made  by\tthe  Central
\nGovernment without  prejudice to the general power contained
\nin sub-section\t(1). In\t exercise of this power, the Central
\nGovernment  made   rules  called   the\t Displaced   Persons
\n(Compensation and  Rehabilitation) Rules, 1955 and published
\nthe same vide Notification dated May 21, 1955.\n<\/p>\n
     Rule 3  lays down\tthat an application for compensation
\nmay be made by a displaced person having a verified claim or
\nif such\t displaced person  is  dead,  by  his  successor-in-
\ninterest.\n<\/p>\n
     Rule  4   prescribes  the\t from  of   application\t for
\ncompensation.\n<\/p>\n
     Rule 16  says that\t compensation shall  be\t payable  in
\naccordance with the scale specified in Appendices VIII or IX
\nas the case may be.\n<\/p>\n
     Rule 49 as originally made ran thus:\n<\/p>\n
\t  “49. Compensation  normally to be paid in the form
\nof land.\n<\/p>\n
\t  Except as  otherwise provided\t in this  chapter, a
\n     displaced person  having verified\tclaim in  respect of
\n     agricultural land\tshall, as  far as  possible, be paid
\n     compensation  by\tallotment  of\tagricultural   land.
\n     Provided that  where any such person wishes to have his
\n     claim   satisfied\t  against   property\tother\tthan
\n     agricultural land,\t he may\t purchase such\tproperty  by
\n     bidding for  it at\t an open auction or by tendering for
\n     it and  in such  a\t case  the  purchase  price  of\t the
\n     property shall be adjusted against the compensation due
\n     on this  verified claim  for  agricultural\t land  which
\n     shall be  converted into  cash at the rate specified in
\n     Rule 56.”\n<\/p>\n
     In 1960,  the following  explanation was  added to\t the
\nabove rule:\n<\/p>\n
\t  “Explanation:-In this\t rule and in the other rules
\n     of this  chapter, the  expression\t‘agricultural  land’
\n     shall mean\t the agricultural  land situated  in a rural
\n     area.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     Rule 51  lays down\t that the scale for the allotment of
\nland as\t compensation in  respect of  a verified  claim\t for
\nagricultural land shall be
\n1290<\/span>
\nthe same  as in the quasi-permanent land Allotment Scheme in
\nthe States  of Punjab and Patiala and the East Punjab States
\nUnion as set out in Appendix XIV.\n<\/p>\n
     Rule 67AA provides:\n<\/p>\n
\t  “67A. Compensation  to displaced persons from West
\n     Punjab,  etc.,   in  respect   of\tagricultural   land.
\n     Notwithstanding anything  contained in  this Chapter, a
\n     displaced person from West Punjab or a displaced person
\n     who was  originally domiciled  in the undivided Punjab,
\n     but who  before the  partition of\tIndia had settled in
\n     North-West Frontier Province, Baluchistan, Bhawalpur or
\n     Sind, whose  verified claim  in respect of agricultural
\n     land has  not been satisfied or has been satisfied only
\n     partially by  the allotment  of evacuee  land under the
\n     relevant notification  specified in  section 10  of the
\n     Act shall\tnot be\tpaid compensation  in any form other
\n     than the transfer of acquired evacuee agricultural land
\n     and rural\thouses and  sites in  the State of Punjab or
\n     Patiala and East Punjab States Union in accordance with
\n     the scales\t specified in  the quasi-permanent allotment
\n     scheme operating in those States:\n<\/p>\n
\t  Provided that if any person has been allotted land
\n     in a State other than Punjab and his land claim has not
\n     been satisfied  fully, he may, for the remaining claim,
\n     either be\tallotted land  due to  him in  that State or
\n     issued a  Statement of Account which he may utilise for
\n     purchase of  property forming  part of the compensation
\n     pool or for adjustment of public dues.”\n<\/p>\n
     Rule 68 is to the following effect:-\n<\/p>\n
\t  “68. Grant  of Sanad\tfor transfer of agricultural
\n     land- Where any agricultural land is transferred to any
\n     person under  these  rules,  the  transferee  shall  be
\n     granted a\tSanad in  the form  specified in Appendix XV
\n     (with such\t modifications as  may be  necessary in\t the
\n     circumstances of  any particular case), or the transfer
\n     may be  effected in any other manner in conformity with
\n     the provisions  of any local or special law relating to
\n     transfer of  agricultural land  in force  in  the\tarea
\n     where such agricultural land is situated.”
\n     Rule 71 casts an obligation on every person to whom any
\nimmoveable property has been allotted by the Custodian under
\nany of\tthe notifications specified in section 10 of the Act
\nto file a declara-\n<\/p>\n
1291<\/span><\/p>\n
tion in\t the form specified in Appendix XVI in the office of
\nthe Settlement\tOfficer or  before the authorised officer in
\nthe village  concerned on  the date and place notified under
\nsub-rule (4).\n<\/p>\n
     Rule 72(1)\t provides for  an enquiry where the allottee
\nhas no verified claim.\n<\/p>\n
     Rule 72(2)\t lays down that if the Settlement Officer is
\nsatisfied that\tthe allotment  is  in  accordance  with\t the
\nquasi-permanent scheme,\t he may\t pass an  order transferring
\nthe land  allotted to the allottee in permanent ownership as
\ncompensation and  shall also issue to him a sand in the form
\nspecified in Appendix XVII or XVIII, as the case may be with
\nsuch modifications  as may be necessary in the circumstances
\nof any particular case granting him such right.\n<\/p>\n
     After  the\t  foregoing  conspectus\t  of   the   various
\nlegislative and\t delegated legislative\tmeasures, let us see
\nwhether the  respondent had  any right\tthe  enforcement  of
\nwhich he  could have  sought by means of the above mentioned
\nwrit petition.\tFrom  the  material  on\t the  record  it  is
\nabundantly clear  that the respondent migrated to India from
\nWest Punjab  in\t the  wake  of\tthe  partition\tof  the\t Sub
\nContinent in 1947 and that the settlement and rehabilitation
\nauthorities satisfied  themselves that he was entitled to an
\nallotment of  113 Standard acres and 3 units of land in lieu
\nof the\tland left  behind by  him in  Bhawalpur.  Since\t the
\nrespondent migrated from Bhawalpur where he had indisputably
\nsettled before\tthe partition  of the  Sub Continent and his
\nverified claim in respect of agricultural land had been only
\npartially satisfied,  he could\tnot according to rule 67A of
\nthe  Displaced\tPersons\t (Compensation\tand  Rehabilitation)
\nRules, 1955,  be paid compensation in any form other than by
\ntransfer of acquired evacuee agricultural land in accordance
\nwith the  scale specified  in the  quasi permanent allotment
\nscheme. Consequently,  it was  the duty\t of  the  Settlement
\nofficer\t under\t Rule  72(2)   of  the\t Displaced   Persons
\n(Compensation and  Rehabilitation) Rules,  1955 to  pass  an
\norder transferring  the land  allotted to  the respondent in
\npermanent ownership  as compensation  and had to issue him a
\nSanad in the prescribed form. It also appears that by virtue
\nof Notification\t No. 697  dated March  24, 1955 issued under
\nsub-section (1)\t of section  12\t of  the  Displaced  Persons
\n(Compensation and  Rehabilitation) Act,\t 1954,\tall  evacuee
\nproperty allotted  under the  Punjab Government Notification
\ndated July  8, 1947  (excepting certain specified categories
\nin respect  of which  proceedings were pending) was acquired
\nby  the\t  Central  Government.\t It  is\t  in  view  of\tthis
\nunchallengable position that we
\n1292<\/span>
\nfind from  the record  particularly the copy of Dharam Chand
\nPatwari’s statement  dated April  6, 1962  made\t before\t the
\nAssistant  Settlement  Commissioner  (Annexure\t‘A’  to\t the
\npetition at  pages 24 and 25 of the printed Paper Book) that
\nallotment on  permanent proprietary  basis  of\t13  standard
\nacres and  3 1\/2 units of land situate in village Bahmniwala
\nwas made  in favour  of the respondent on March 1, 1957 that
\nSanad evidencing  allotment of the aforesaid 28 kila numbers
\nwas issued  in favour  of the  respondent on  the same date;
\nthat possession\t of the\t aforesaid area of 13 standard acres
\nand 3  1\/2 units  was handed  over to the respondent on June
\n17, 1957; that entry regarding delivery of possession of the
\naforesaid 28  kila numbers  was made  by the  Patwari in the
\nRoznamcha Waqaati  on June  17, 1957;  that entries exist in
\nkhasra\tgirdawaries  of\t village  Bahmniwala  regarding\t the
\nrespondent’s possession\t of the\t aforesaid fields  from June
\n17, 1957 upto Rabi 1960 when due to carelessness on the part
\nof the Consolidation Officer, Ratia, Rectangle No. 133 (kila
\nNos. 4min,  5min, 6min,\t 7min, 14min,  15, 16, 17min, 24 and\n<\/p>\n
25) and\t Rectangle No.\t134 (kila  Nos. 8min,  9min,  18min,
\n19min, 20,  21min and 22min) which were allotted in exchange
\nof the\taforesaid 28  kila numbers  were entered  not in the
\nname of\t the respondent\t but in\t the kurrah of the Custodian
\nand subsequently  due to the carelessness on the part of the
\nNaib Tehsildar-cum-Managing  Officer were  allotted to Madan
\nMohan Singh and others.\n<\/p>\n
     In view  of the  foregoing, we  are of the opinion that
\nthe respondent\thas succeeded in establishing that permanent
\nproprietary allotment  of the  aforesaid 28  kila numbers of
\nvillage Bahmniwala  was validily  made in  his\tfavour\tvide
\naforesaid allotment  order dated March 1, 1957. Accordingly,
\nwe have\t no hesitation in holding that the respondent had an
\nenforceable right  in  respect\tof  the\t aforesaid  28\tkila
\nnumbers of  village Bahmniwala.\t In view  of  our  aforesaid
\nfinding\t that\tpermanent  proprietary\t allotment  of\t the
\naforesaid 28  kila numbers was validly made in favour of the
\nrespondent which  conferred an enforceable right on him, the
\nanswer to the second question cannot but be in the negative.
\nThe view that we have formed is reinforced by the provisions
\nof section  19 of  the Displaced  Persons (Compensation\t and
\nRehabilitation) Act,  1954 and\tRule 102  of  the  Displaced
\nPersons (Compensation  and Rehabilitation) Rules, 1955 which
\nprovide as under:-\n<\/p>\n
\t  “19. Powers  to vary\tor cancel  allotment of\t any
\n     property acquired\tunder this  Act.-(1) Notwithstanding
\n     anything contained in any contract or any other law for
\n     the
\n1293<\/span>
\n     time being\t in force  but subject to any rules that may
\n     be\t made  under  this  Act,  the  managing\t officer  or
\n     managing corporation  may cancel any allotment or amend
\n     the terms\tof any\tallotment under\t which\tany  evacuee
\n     property acquired under this Act is held or occupied by
\n     a person,\twhether such allotment was granted before or
\n     after the commencement of this Act…… ”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t  102. Cancellation  of\t allotments  :\t“A  managing
\n     officer or a managing corporation may in respect of the
\n     property in  the compensation  pool entrusted to him or
\n     to it,  cancel an\tallotment or  vary the\tterms of any
\n     such allotment if the allottee-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t  (a)  has sublet  or parted  with the possession of
\n\t       the  whole   or\tany  part  of  the  property
\n\t       allotted to  him without\t the permission of a
\n\t       competent authority, or\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t  (b)  has used\t or is\tusing such  property  for  a
\n\t       purpose other  than that\t for  which  it\t was
\n\t       allotted to  him without\t the permission of a
\n\t       competent authority, or\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t  (c)  has committed any act which is destructive of
\n\t       or permanently injurious to the property, or\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t  (d)  for  any\t  other\t sufficient   reason  to  be
\n\t       recorded in writing.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t  Provided that\t no action shall be taken under this
\n     rule unless  the allottee\thas been  given a reasonable
\n     opportunity of being heard.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     Though in\tview of the above quoted provisions, it may,
\nin certain contingencies, be open to the Managing Officer or
\nManaging Corporation  to  cancel  the  allotment  under\t the
\naforesaid section  19 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation
\nand Rehabilitation)  Act, 1954\tread with  Rule 102  of\t the
\nDisplaced Persons  (Compensation and  Rehabilitation) Rules,
\n1955, it  cannot be  done unless  an  allottee\tis  given  a
\nreasonable opportunity\tof being heard. In the present case,
\nit is  clear from the record that no action for cancellation
\nof allotment was taken under the aforesaid provisions of the
\nAct  and  the  Rules.  It  is  not  understood\thow  without
\ncomplying with the aforesaid provisions, the Naib Tehsildar-
\ncum-Managing Officer  allotted the  aforesaid parcel of land
\nwhich already  stood allotted  in the name of the respondent
\nto the\tappellants. The\t action on  the\t part  of  the\tNaib
\nTehsildar-cum-Managing Officer\twas  evidently\tin  flagrant
\nviolation of  the clear\t and unequivocal  provisions of law.
\nAccordingly,
\n1294<\/span>
\nwe agree  with the  High Court\tthat the impugned orders are
\nmanifestly  illegal,   arbitrary,  unjust   and\t cannot\t  be
\nsustained. However,  taking into consideration all the facts
\nand circumstances of the case particularly the fact that the
\nappellants appear  to have  purchased the  area in  question
\nfrom Madan  Mohan Singh\t for a\thuge sum of Rs. 40,000\/- and
\ninvested a  considerable amount\t on the\t construction  of  a
\nhouse, we  think that  it will be eminently just and fair if
\nthe appellants\tare allowed  to\t retain\t Rectangle  No.\t 134
\ncomprising kila\t Nos. 8min,  9min,  10min,  11,\t 12,  13min,
\n18min, 19min,  20, 21min and 22min on which their house also
\nstands and  Rectangle No.  133 comprising  kila\t Nos.  4min,
\n5min, 6min,  7min, 14min,  15, 16, 17min, 24 and 25 is given
\nover to\t the respondent. The learned counsel for the parties
\nalso agree  to this  course being adopted in the interest of
\njustice.\n<\/p>\n
     The respondent  shall be  at liberty  to  approach\t the
\nsettlement authorities\tfor allotment of some other suitable
\nland in lieu of Rectangle No. 134 comprising kila Nos. 8min,
\n9min, 10min,  11, 12,  13min, 18min,  19min, 20,  21min\t and
\n22min to  make up  the deficiency,  if any,  in the  land to
\nwhich he  may  be  entitled  and  if  the  latter  i.e.\t the
\nsettlement authorities\tfind that  the area  already held by
\nthe respondent\tif added to the area now ordered to be given
\nto him\tstill falls  short of  his entitlement, they will be
\nfree to allot him an area which will make up his unsatisfied
\nclaim provided\the is found otherwise authorised to hold the
\nsaid area  on allotment\t or occupy  the same under any other
\nlaw in\tforce in  the State.  The allotment  of the  area to
\nwhich the  respondent may be found entitled to shall, as far
\nas possible,  be made  in the  vicinity of  the area already
\nheld by\t him. Subject  this modification,  the rest  of\t the
\njudgment and  order of the High Court will stand. The appeal
\nis disposed of accordingly.\n<\/p>\n
P.B.R.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Sadhu Singh (Deceased) & Ors vs Union Of India & Ors on 2 September, 1978 Equivalent citations: 1979 AIR 1609, 1979 SCR (3)1279 Author: J Singh Bench: Singh, Jaswant PETITIONER: SADHU SINGH (DECEASED) & ORS. Vs. RESPONDENT: UNION OF INDIA & ORS. DATE OF JUDGMENT02\/09\/1978 BENCH: SINGH, JASWANT BENCH: SINGH, JASWANT […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-128175","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nSadhu Singh (Deceased) & Ors vs Union Of India & Ors on 2 September, 1978 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sadhu-singh-deceased-ors-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-2-september-1978\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Sadhu Singh (Deceased) & Ors vs Union Of India & Ors on 2 September, 1978 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sadhu-singh-deceased-ors-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-2-september-1978\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"1978-09-01T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-08-17T17:45:59+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"29 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sadhu-singh-deceased-ors-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-2-september-1978#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sadhu-singh-deceased-ors-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-2-september-1978\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Sadhu Singh (Deceased) & Ors vs Union Of India & Ors on 2 September, 1978\",\"datePublished\":\"1978-09-01T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-08-17T17:45:59+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sadhu-singh-deceased-ors-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-2-september-1978\"},\"wordCount\":5509,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sadhu-singh-deceased-ors-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-2-september-1978#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sadhu-singh-deceased-ors-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-2-september-1978\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sadhu-singh-deceased-ors-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-2-september-1978\",\"name\":\"Sadhu Singh (Deceased) & Ors vs Union Of India & Ors on 2 September, 1978 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1978-09-01T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-08-17T17:45:59+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sadhu-singh-deceased-ors-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-2-september-1978#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sadhu-singh-deceased-ors-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-2-september-1978\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sadhu-singh-deceased-ors-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-2-september-1978#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Sadhu Singh (Deceased) & Ors vs Union Of India & Ors on 2 September, 1978\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Sadhu Singh (Deceased) & Ors vs Union Of India & Ors on 2 September, 1978 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sadhu-singh-deceased-ors-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-2-september-1978","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Sadhu Singh (Deceased) & Ors vs Union Of India & Ors on 2 September, 1978 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sadhu-singh-deceased-ors-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-2-september-1978","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1978-09-01T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-08-17T17:45:59+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"29 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sadhu-singh-deceased-ors-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-2-september-1978#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sadhu-singh-deceased-ors-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-2-september-1978"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Sadhu Singh (Deceased) & Ors vs Union Of India & Ors on 2 September, 1978","datePublished":"1978-09-01T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-08-17T17:45:59+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sadhu-singh-deceased-ors-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-2-september-1978"},"wordCount":5509,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sadhu-singh-deceased-ors-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-2-september-1978#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sadhu-singh-deceased-ors-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-2-september-1978","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sadhu-singh-deceased-ors-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-2-september-1978","name":"Sadhu Singh (Deceased) & Ors vs Union Of India & Ors on 2 September, 1978 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1978-09-01T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-08-17T17:45:59+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sadhu-singh-deceased-ors-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-2-september-1978#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sadhu-singh-deceased-ors-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-2-september-1978"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sadhu-singh-deceased-ors-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-2-september-1978#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Sadhu Singh (Deceased) & Ors vs Union Of India & Ors on 2 September, 1978"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/128175","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=128175"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/128175\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=128175"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=128175"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=128175"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}