{"id":242086,"date":"1961-03-15T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1961-03-14T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/major-gopal-singh-and-others-vs-custodian-evacuee-property-on-15-march-1961"},"modified":"2015-03-22T17:36:39","modified_gmt":"2015-03-22T12:06:39","slug":"major-gopal-singh-and-others-vs-custodian-evacuee-property-on-15-march-1961","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/major-gopal-singh-and-others-vs-custodian-evacuee-property-on-15-march-1961","title":{"rendered":"Major Gopal Singh And Others vs Custodian, Evacuee Property, … on 15 March, 1961"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Major Gopal Singh And Others vs Custodian, Evacuee Property, … on 15 March, 1961<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 1961 AIR 1320, \t\t 1962 SCR (1) 328<\/div>\n
Author: M R.<\/div>\n
Bench: Mudholkar, J.R.<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nMAJOR GOPAL SINGH AND OTHERS\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nCUSTODIAN, EVACUEE PROPERTY, PUNJAB\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT:\n15\/03\/1961\n\nBENCH:\nMUDHOLKAR, J.R.\nBENCH:\nMUDHOLKAR, J.R.\nSUBBARAO, K.\nDAYAL, RAGHUBAR\n\nCITATION:\n 1961 AIR 1320\t\t  1962 SCR  (1) 328\n CITATOR INFO :\n R\t    1962 SC 994\t (4)\n\n\nACT:\nEvacuee Property--Quasi-permanent allotment-Cancellation of-\nCustodian General,powers of-Enactment vesting evacuee Pro-\nperty  in Central Government-If Custodian General still\t has\npower to cancel allotment-Administration of Evacuee Property\nAct,  1950  (31\t of 1950), SS.\t10,  27\t -Displaced  Persons\n(Compensation  and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954 (44  of  1954),\nSS. 12, 19.\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\nThe appellants who are displaced persons from West Pakistan,\nwere  granted  quasi-permanent allotment of  some  lands  in\nvillage Raikot in 1949.\t On October 31, 1952, the  Assistant\nCustodian cancelled the allotment of 14 allottees in village\nKarodian, and also cancelled the allotment of the Appellants\nin  Raikot but allotted lands to them in  village  Karodian,\nand  allotted the lands of Raikot to other persons.  The  14\nallottees  of  village Karodian as well\t as  the  appellants\napplied\t for review of the orders of cancellation  of  their\nallotment.    The  application\tof  the\t 14  allottees\t was\ndismissed.   They  preferred  a revision  to  the  Custodian\nGeneral who cancelled the appellant's allotment\n(1)  (1907) I.L.R. 34 Cal. 926.\n329\nin  Karodian and restored the allotment of the 14  allottees\non  December  17, 1954 Thereupon,, on January 6,  1955,\t the\nappellants moved the Custodian General for calling up  their\nreview application and for revising the order of October 31,\n1952,  cancelling their allotment-in Raikot.  The  Custodian\nGeneral\t refused to revise the order on the ground that\t his\npower to revise had been taken away by the Displaced Persons\n(Compensation\tand   Rehabilitation)\tAct,,\t1954.\t The\nappellants  contended  that the, Custodian General  had\t the\npower to revise the order.\nHeld,  that  after the enactment of the,  Displaced  Persons\n(Compensation  and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954, the  Custodian\nGeneral ceased to have the power to cancel allotments.\t By,\nthe  issuing of a notification under, S. 12(1) of this\tAct,\nthe Fight, title or interest of the evacuee in the  property\nspecified  in  the  notification was  extinguished  and\t the\nproperty vested absolutely in the Central.  Government.\t The\nright  of  the\tCustodian  manage  the\tproperty  under\t the\nAdministration of Evacuee Property Act, 1950, came to an end\nand  the management vested in a new set of  officers.\tEven\nthough\tno-  managing officer was appointed  or\t a  managing\ncorporation,  constituted  under the new Act to\t manage\t the\nproperty   no\tone--else  could'exercise   the\t  power\t  of\ncancellation of allotment.\nBal  Mukund v. The State of Punjab, I.L.R. 1957\t Punj.\t712,\napproved.\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 101 of 1959.
\nAppeal\tby special leave from the judgment and\torder  dated
\nNovember  8, 1957, of the Deputy Custodian General,  Evacuee
\nProperty, Now Delhi Revision Petition No. 17-R\/55 of 1955.
\nAchhru Ram and K. L. Mehta for the appellants.
\nB.K., Khanna and, T. M. Sen, for the respondent No. 1.
\nN.S.  Bindra and A. G. Ratnaparkhi, for\t the  respondents
\nNos. 2-4.\n<\/p>\n
1961.  March 15.  The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
\nMUDHOLKAR   J.-The appellants who are admittedly   displaced
\npersons\t from  West Pakistan were granted  quasi-  permanent
\nallotment  of  24  standard acres and 15 3\/4  units  in\t the
\nvillage\t of  Raikot  in Ludhiana District  in  1949.   Their
\nfather Sardar Nand Singh who was
\n42<\/span>
\n330<\/span>
\nfound  entitled to quasi-permanent allotment of 40  standard
\nacres  and  5  1\/4 units of land  was  given  quasipermanent
\nallotment  in  another\tvillage named Humbran  in  the\tsame
\ndistrict.   The\t two villages are, however, 25 miles  or  so
\ndistant\t from  each other.  Nand Singh, therefore,  made  an
\napplication for consolidation of his lands with those of the
\nappellants  in the village Raikot.  During the\tpendency  of
\nthis   application  he\tdied  and  after  his  death,\tthe,
\napplication   was   continued  by  the\t appellants.\tThis
\napplication was rejected by the Assistant Custodian on\tJuly
\n23,  1951  on the ground that no land was available  in\t the
\nvillage\t Raikot.   A  revision\tpetition  preferred  by\t the
\nappellants against the order of the Assistant Custodian\t was
\ndismissed  by the Additional Custodian on August  20,  1952.
\nOn  October  7,\t 1952 the appellants  preferred\t a  revision
\napplication before the Custodian General.
\nDuring\t the  pendency\tof  the\t revision  application\t the
\nAdditional  Custodian for the State of Punjab cancelled\t the
\nallotment  of  fourteen\t quasi-permanent  allottees  of\t the
\nvillage\t Karodian  in the same district on the\tground\tthat
\nthese persons were entitled to allotment of suburban land  a
\nhad been wrongly fitted in the village Karodian.  Acting suo
\nmotu  the Additional Custodian made an order on October\t 31,
\n1952  cancelling  the  order of allotment  of  land  in\t the
\nvillage Raikot made in favour of the appellants in the\tyear
\n1949  and  instead  allotted to them  land  in\tKarodian  in
\nsubstitution  of  :,the\t lands at Raikot and  of  the  lands
\nallotted to their father.  The land allotted was out of\t the
\nland released upon the cancellation of allotment of lands in
\nfavour\tof the aforementioned 14 allottees.  These  fourteen
\nallottees  preferred an application for review of the  order
\ncancelling   their  allotment  on  the\tground\t that\tthis
\ncancellation  was a result of misapprehension of the  actual
\nfacts  and  that  they were not\t entitled  to  allotment  of
\nsuburban  lands\t at all.  The appellants also  preferred  an
\napplication for review of the order cancelling their  quasi-
\npermanent allotment in the village Raikot.
\nThe Additional Custodian for the State of Punjab recommended
\nto the Custodian General the restoration
\n331<\/span>
\nof  the land to the 14 allottees which had been\t taken\taway
\nfrom  them  by reason of cancellation of  the  allotment  in
\ntheir  favour  by  the order dated October  31,\t 1952.\t The
\nAdditional  Custodian admitted that these persons  were\t not
\nentitled to allotment of suburban land and that consequently
\ntheir  allotment  had  been wrongly made  but  referred\t the
\nmatter back to\tthe Additional Custodian for  decision.\t The
\napplication made by the appellants was kept pending till the
\ndecision of the application of the 14 allottees of Karodian.
\nThe Additional Custodian, however, dismissed the application
\non  the ground that r. 14(6) of the Evacuee  Property  Rules
\nwhich came into force on July 22, 1952, stood in the way  of
\ncancellation of the allotment in favour of the appellant.
\nOn  December 17, 1954, the Deputy Custodian General,  before
\nwhom  these  allottees\thad  preferred\tan  application\t for
\nrevision, revised the order of the Additional Custodian\t and
\nrestored to the 14 allottees of Karodian the land which\t had
\nbeen originally allotted to them. and allotment of which had
\nbeen  cancelled\t earlier.   As a result of  this  order\t the
\nallotment of Karodian land made in favour of the  appellants
\nautomatically stood cancelled.\n<\/p>\n
On  January  6,\t 1955,\tthe  appellants\t moved\tthe   Deputy
\nCustodian  General for calling up their\t review\t application
\nand for revising the order of October 31, 1952 passed by the
\nAdditional  Custodian  cancelling the  allotment  of  Raikot
\nlands which had originally been made in their favour in\t the
\nyear 1949.\n<\/p>\n
Consequent   upon  the\tcancellation  of   the\t appellants’
\nallotment   of\tthe  Raikot  land  they\t were  allotted\t  to
\nrespondents 2 to 4. These persons were, therefore, impleaded
\nas  parties to the proceedings before the  Deputy  Custodian
\nGeneral.   By  the order dated November 8, 1957\t the  Deputy
\nCustodian  General  dismissed the  appellants’\tapplication.
\nThe appellants have, therefore, come up to this Court by way
\nof appeal with special leave.\n<\/p>\n
The ground on which the appellants’ application was rejected
\nby the Deputy Custodian General was that his jurisdiction to
\nrevise the order has been
\n332<\/span>
\ntaken away by virtue of the provisions of Displaced  Persons
\n(Compensation  and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954, (44  of  1954)
\nand  the notification issued thereunder on March  24,  1955.
\nIn  taking this view he has relied upon the decision in\t Bal
\nMukund\tv. The State of Punjab (1).  In that case the  Court
\nhas  held that the powers of the Custodian General  to\tdeal
\nwith  matters  of  this kind have been\ttaken  away  by\t the
\nDisplaced  Persons  (Compensation and  Rehabilitation)\tAct,
\n1954,  and that these powers now vest in  another  authority
\nand  that  there  is no provision for  continuing  the\tpro-
\nceedings  which had been commenced under the  Administration
\nof Evacuee Property Act., 1950, but had not been  concluded.
\nMr. Achhruram for the appellants challenged the\t correctness
\nof this decision.\n<\/p>\n
There  is  no specific provision in this Act to\t the  effect
\nthat after its commencement the jurisdiction of the  various
\nauthorities   created  by  the\tAdministration\tof   Evacuee
\nProperty   Act,\t 1950,\tto  deal  with\tthe   allotment\t  or
\ncancellation  of allotment of evacuee property shall  cease.
\nWhat  is  urged\t by Mr. Khanna on behalf  of  the  Custodian
\nGeneral is that this is the effect of the provisions of\t ss.
\n12(2) and 19 of the Act.\n<\/p>\n
Section\t 12 of the 1954 Act empowers the Central  Government
\nto acquire evacuee property for rehabilitation of  displaced
\npersons by publishing in the official gazette a notification
\nto  the effect that it has decided to acquire  such  evacuee
\nproperty  in  pursuance\t of this provision.   It  is  common
\nground\tthat  by notification S. R. 0. 697 dated  March\t 24,
\n1955  the Central Government decided to acquire all  evacuee
\nproperty  allotted  to displaced persons  by  the  Custodian
\nunder the “Conditions” contained in the notification of\t the
\nGovernment  of Punjab in the Department\t of  Rehabilitation,
\nNo. 4892-6 dated July 8, 1949, except certain categories  of
\nproperty  specified in the schedule.  The Raikot lands\twere
\nallotted to the appellants under the aforesaid\tnotification
\nof  the Government of Punjab.  It is not disputed  on  their
\nbehalf\tthat  they do not fall within any  of  the  excepted
\ncategories  of\tproperty,  set out in  the  schedule.\tSub-
\nsection 2 of s. 12 of the Act
\n(1)  I.L.R. 1957 Punj. 712.\n<\/p>\n
333<\/span><\/p>\n
provides  that on the publication of the notification  under
\nsub-s. 1 the right, title or interest of any evacuee in\t the
\nproperty  specified  in the notification  shall\t immediately
\nstand  extinguished and that property shall vest  absolutely
\nin  the Central Government free from all encumbrances.\t The
\npower  of the Custodian under the Administration of  Evacuee
\nProperty Act, 1950, to allot any property to a person or  to
\ncancel an allotment existing in favour of a person rests  on
\nthe   fact  that  the  property\t vests\tin  him.   But\t the
\nconsequence  of the publication of the notification  by\t the
\nCentral\t Government under s. 12(1) of the Displaced  Persons
\n(Compensation  and Rehabilitation) Act with respect  to\t any
\nproperty  or  a\t class of property would be  to\t divest\t the
\nCustodian  completely of his right in the  property  flowing
\nfrom  s.  8 of the Administration of Evacuee  Property\tAct,
\n1950, and vest that property in the Central Government.\t  He
\nwould, therefore, not be competent to deal with the property
\nin  any manner in the absence of any provision in either  of
\nthese two enactments permitting him to do so.  No  provision
\nwas,  however,\tpointed out to us in either  of\t these\tActs
\nwhereunder  despite  the  Vesting of  the  property  in\t the
\nCentral Government the Custodian was empowered to deal\twith
\nit.   Sub-s.  4 of s. 12 of the 1954 Act provides  that\t all
\nevacuee property acquired under that section shall form part
\nof  the compensation pool.  Under s. 16(1) of this  Act\t the
\nCentral Government is empowered to take such measures as  it
\nconsiders necessary or expedient for the custody, management
\nand  disposal of the compensation pool.\t Sub-s. 2 of  s.  16
\nempowers the Central Government to appoint such officers  as
\nit deems fit or to constitute such authority or\t corporation
\nas it deems fit for the purpose of managing and disposing of
\nthe  properties\t forming  part\tof  the\t compensation  pool.
\nSection 19 of the Act provides that notwithstanding anything
\ncontained  in  any contract or any other law  for  the\ttime
\nbeing  in  force but subject to the rules that may  be\tmade
\nunder  the Act the managing officer or managing\t corporation
\nmay  cancel  any  allotment etc., under\t which\tany  evacuee
\nproperty acquired under the Act is held or
\n334<\/span>
\noccupied  by  a person whether such allotment or  lease\t was
\ngranted\t before or after the commencement of the Act.\tThis
\nprovision  thus\t confers  the power  to\t deal  with  evacuee
\nproperty  acquired under the Act only on a managing  officer
\nappointed or managing corporation constituted under the\t Act
\nand  makes no mention whatsoever of the Custodian  appointed
\nunder the Administration of Evacuee Property Act.  No doubt,
\nunder  s. 10 of the Administration of Evacuee  Property\t Act
\nthe Custodian is empowered to manage evacuee property and in
\nexercise  of  his power he will be competent to\t allot\tsuch
\nproperty  to any person or to cancel an allotment  or  lease
\nmade  in  favour  of a person.\tApart  from  the  fact\tthat
\nsubsequent  to the issue of the notification under s.  12(1)
\nof  the Displaced Persons (Compensation and  Rehabilitation)
\nAct,  the property would cease to be evacuee  property,\t the
\naforesaid powers of the Custodian would be in conflict\twith
\nthose  conferred  by  s. 19 of the 1954 Act  on\t a  managing
\nofficer\t or  a managing corporation constituted\t under\tthat
\nAct.  In other words, to that extent the provisions of s. 10
\nof  the\t 1950  Act and s. 19 of the 1954  Act  cannot  stand
\ntogether.  As already stated the powers conferred by  sub-s.
\n(1) of s. 19 of the 1954 Act are to prevail  notwithstanding
\nanything  contained in any other law for the time  being  in
\nforce.\tTherefore, they must prevail over the provisions  of
\nB. 10 of the Administration of Evacuee Property Act.  It  is
\ntrue  that  there,  is\tnothing on record  to  show  that  a
\nmanaging  officer was appointed with respect to\t the  Raikot
\nproperties  acquired under the notification dated March\t 24,
\n1955.  But it is not necessary to ascertain that fact.\t The
\npoint  is, who, after the coming into force of the 1954\t Act
\ncould  cancel  an allotment.  Section 10 says  that  only  a
\nmanaging officer or a managing corporation can do so.\tThis
\nmeans that no one else can do so even though some other\t law
\nmay have authorised another person or authority to cancel an
\nallotment.\n<\/p>\n
Mr.  Achhruram,\t however,  contended  that  the\t appellants’
\nrights\twere  protected by s. 10 of  the  Displaced  Persons
\n(Compensation  and Rehabilitation) Act.\t Section 10 runs  as
\nfollows:\n<\/p>\n
335<\/span><\/p>\n
\t      “Special procedure for payment of compensation
\n\t      in certain cases.-Where any immovable property
\n\t      has  been\t leased or allotted to\ta  displaced
\n\t      person  by the Custodian under the  conditions
\n\t      published-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      (a)by the notification of the Government of
\n\t      Pun.  jab in the Department of  Rehabilitation
\n\t      No. 4892-S or 4892-S dated the 8th July, 1949,
\n\t      or\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      (b)by the notification of the Government of
\n\t      Patiala  and East Punjab States Union  in\t the
\n\t      Department  of  Rehabilitation No. 8R  or\t 9R,
\n\t      dated  the 23rd July, 1949, and  published  in
\n\t      the  official Gazette of that State dated\t the
\n\t      7th   August,  1949,  and\t such  property\t  is
\n\t      acquired under the provisions of this Act\t and
\n\t      forms  part  of  the  compensation  pool,\t the
\n\t      displaced\t  person  shall,  so  long  as\t the
\n\t      property\t remains  vested  in   the   Central
\n\t      Government,  continue  in possession  of\tsuch
\n\t      property\ton the same conditions on  which  he
\n\t      held the property immediately before the\tdate
\n\t      of the acquisition, and the Central Government
\n\t      may,   for   the\t purpose   of\tpayment\t  of
\n\t      compensation   to\t  such\t displaced   person,
\n\t      transfer\tto him such property on\t such  terms
\n\t      and conditions as may be prescribed.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
It  is followed by an explanation; but that explanation\t has
\nno bearing upon the point urged by Mr. Achhruram.  It is  no
\ndoubt  true  that  the Raikot lands  were  allotted  to\t the
\nappellants under the notification referred to in el. (a)  of
\nthis  section and, therefore, they would be entitled to\t the
\nbenefits  conferred by this section provided they  satisfied
\nall  the  other\t requirements of this  section,\t express  or
\nimplied.  It is implicit in this section that the  displaced
\nperson to whom land was allotted “held” the land and was  in
\npossession of such property at the date of the notification.
\nIt  is not disputed that the appellants ceased to  hold\t and
\nhad   lost  possession\tof  the\t Raikot\t lands\tbefore\t the
\npublication  of this notification.  Even assuming  that\t the
\norder  of  the Custodian cancelling the allotment  in  their
\nfavour\twas  erroneous there will be no\t difference  in\t the
\nresult because what is essential is the facts of holding and
\npossession of the land on the date of the notification.\n<\/p>\n
336<\/span><\/p>\n
Mr.  Achhruram\tthen referred to the “Conditions”  on  which
\nallotments  of\tland  may be  made  under  the\tnotification
\nreferred  to  in  sub-s. 10(a) and pointed  out\t that  under
\ncondition  no. 6 the Custodian or  rehabilitation  authority
\nwould be competent to resume or cancel an allotment only  on
\none of the grounds set out in that condition.  He said\tthat
\nthe   cancellation  of\tthe  allotment\tin  favour  of\t the
\nappellants  was impermissible inasmuch as it was  not  based
\nupon any of the grounds set out in the 6th condition.\tThat
\nmay  or may not be so.\tWe would repeat that the  appellants
\nhad  lost  their possession before the\tpublication  of\t the
\nnotification and are thus not entitled to the protection  of
\nthe  section.\tMoreover, the Custodian, by  reason  of\t the
\ndivesting  of  the  property, as from March  24,  1955,\t had
\nbecome\tfunctus\t officio with respect to it  and  could\t not
\nrectify\t any error made by him in the past in the matter  of
\ncancellation  of  allotment.   It  is  true  that  had\t the
\nappellants  been  in possession at the\tcritical  time\tthey
\nwould  have had the right to obtain a permanent transfer  in
\ntheir  favour  of  the Raikot lands and by  virtue  of\twhat
\nhappened and without any fault on their part they have\tbeen
\ndeprived  ‘of  that right.  That is indeed  unfortunate\t but
\nnone  of  the authorities created by the  Administration  of
\nEvacuee\t Property Act could rectify the wrong that has\tbeen
\ndone  by  them to the appellant.  The  question\t whether  it
\ncould be rectified by any of the authorities constituted  by
\nthe Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation)\t Act
\nor not was not canvassed before us and, therefore, there  is
\nno occasion for us to say anything about it.\n<\/p>\n
Mr. Achhruram contended that r. 74 of the Displaced  Persons
\n(Compensation  and Rehabilitation) Rules, 1955 stood in\t the
\nway  of the Custodian allotting the Raikot property  to\t the
\nrespondents  during the pendency of the\t proceedings  before
\nthe Custodian General.\tThat rule reads as follows:\n<\/p>\n
\t      “Allotments  which are the subject  matter  of
\n\t      dispute.-No  property  in\t a  rural  area\t  in
\n\t      respect  of  which any case is  pending  in  a
\n\t      Civil  Court  or before  a  Deputy  Custodian,
\n\t      Custodian\t or  Custodian\tGeneral,  shall\t  be
\n\t      transferred to the allottee”.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
337<\/span><\/p>\n
The  aforesaid\trule  is in Chapter  X\theaded\t“Payment  of
\ncompensation  under section 10 of the Act” and deals with  a
\ntransfer  of  property\tto  an\tallottee  by  way  of  final
\nsettlement  of his claim to compensation and does  not\tdeal
\nwith  the question of allotment on a quasi-permanent  basis.
\nMoreover,  this\t rule  applies to  a  proceeding  before  an
\nauthority created by the Displaced Persons (Compensation and
\nRehabilitation)\t Act and not to an authority created by\t the
\nAdministration\t of   Evacuee  Property\t Act.\t There\t is,
\ntherefore, no substance in this argument.\n<\/p>\n
Finally Mr. Achhruram referred to s. 17 of the 1954 Act\t and
\nto  r. 102 of the Rules framed thereunder and said that\t the
\npowers of the managing officers appointed under the Act\t are
\nconfined only to properties which are entrusted to them\t for
\nmanagement  and\t not  with respect to  any  other  property.
\nSection\t 17 deals with the function; and duties of  managing
\nofficers and managing corporation.  Sub-s. (1) provides that
\nmanaging  officers  and managing corporations  will  perform
\nsuch  functions\t as may be assigned to them under  the\tAct.
\nSub-s.\t(2) provides that subject to the provisions  of\t the
\nAct  and the rules made thereunder, a managing officer or  a
\nmanaging  corporation  may, among other\t things,  take\tsuch
\nmeasures as he or it considers it necessary or expedient for
\nthe purpose of securing, administering, preserving, managing
\nor  disposing  of  any property\t in  the  compensation\tpool
\nentrusted to him or it… etc.\tThe argument is that  unless
\nthere is such “entrustment” the managing officer or managing
\ncorporation  has  no  function to perform  with\t respect  to
\nevacuee\t property.  His contention appears to be that  there
\nis  nothing to show that this property was “entrusted” to  a
\nmanaging  officer.  In the first place the  section  confers
\nthe  particular\t powers\t On managing  officers\tor  managing
\ncorporations  only and no one else.  Therefore, even  if  no
\nmanaging officer or managing corporation was appointed\twith
\nrespect\t to  that property no one else\tcould  exercise\t the
\npower  of cancellation of allotment.  Further, there  is  no
\nground in the special leave petition or in the statement  of
\nthe
\n43<\/span>
\n338<\/span>
\ncase  that there is no entrustment in fact of this  property
\nor  this  class\t of properties to  a  managing\tofficer\t  or
\nmanaging corporation.  He cannot, therefore, be permitted to
\nmake out a new case at this stage of argument.\tThat  apart,
\nthis  argument\tassumes\t that  the  property,  despite\t the
\npublication  of the notification under s. 12(1) of  the\t Act
\ncontinues to be evacuee property.  Again, this provision  is
\na  general provision and the particular provision  regarding
\ncancellation of allotment is s. 19(1) of the Act which\tdoes
\nnot  refer  to entrustment at all and it is  this  provision
\nwhich  must  prevail over the general  provision.   He\tthen
\ncontends  that the provisions of s. 19(1) of the  Act  being
\nsubject to rules made under the Act must be read along\twith
\nr.  102\t which\tdeals with  cancellation  of  allotments  of
\nleases.\t That rule reads thus:\n<\/p>\n
\t      “Cancellation  of\t allotments  and  leases—A
\n\t      managing officer or a managing corporation may
\n\t      sell  any\t property in the  compensation\tpool
\n\t      entrusted to him or to it, cancel an allotment
\n\t      or terminate a lease, or vary the terms of any
\n\t      such  lease  or allotment if the\tallottee  or
\n\t      lessee, as the case may be-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      (a)has sublet or parted with the possession
\n\t      of  the  whole  or any part  of  the  property
\n\t      allotted\t or  leased  to\t him   without\t the
\n\t      permission of a competent authority, or\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      (b)has used or is using such property for a
\n\t      purpose  other  than  that for  which  it\t was
\n\t      allotted\t or  leased  to\t him   without\t the
\n\t      permission of a competent authority, or\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      (c)   has\t  committed   any   act\t  which\t  is
\n\t      destructive of or\t   permanently injurious  to
\n\t      the property, or\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      (d)   for\t any other sufficient reason  to  be
\n\t      recorded
\n\t      in writing;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      Provided\tthat no action shall be taken  under
\n\t      this  rule unless the allottee or the  lessee,
\n\t      as   the\tcase  may  be,\thas  been  given   a
\n\t      reasonable opportunity of being heard.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
He  points out that in the first place, the rule  speaks  of
\nland ‘entrusted’ to the manager and, therefore would operate
\nonly  if entrustment is established.  What we have  said  in
\nregard to s. 17 would apply
\n339<\/span>
\nhere also.  He then says that this rule restricts the powers
\nof  a  managing\t officer or a managing\tcorporation  in\t the
\nmatter\tof  cancellation of allotment in the sense  that  it
\npermits cancellation only on certain specified grounds\tand,
\ntherefore,  it\tcannot be said that s. 19(1) of the  Act  is
\ncompletely  in conflict with s. 10 of the Administration  of
\nEvacuee\t  Property  Act\t in  so\t far  as  the  question\t  of
\ncancellation  of allotment is concerned.  We  cannot  accept
\nthe argument because, apart from the fact that the  acquired
\nproperties have ceased to be evacuee properties, el. (d)  of
\nr. 102 permits the managing officer or managing\t corporation
\nto  cancel allotment “for any other sufficient reason to  be
\nrecorded  in  writing”.\t  The only effect of r.\t 102  is  to
\npermit\tcancellation  ‘of an allotment for  reasons  stated.
\nThat is all.  In our opinion, therefore, this rule does\t not
\nhelp the appellants.\n<\/p>\n
Mr.  Khanna had raised three other points but upon the\tview
\nwhich we have taken as to the effect of ss. 12 and 19 of the
\nAct, it is not necessary to consider them.\n<\/p>\n
The  appeal is accordingly dismissed.  We, however, make  no
\norder  as  to costs because had there been no delay  on\t the
\npart  of the Custodian General in dealing with the  revision
\napplication the present situation would not have arisen.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t       Appeal dismissed.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Major Gopal Singh And Others vs Custodian, Evacuee Property, … on 15 March, 1961 Equivalent citations: 1961 AIR 1320, 1962 SCR (1) 328 Author: M R. Bench: Mudholkar, J.R. PETITIONER: MAJOR GOPAL SINGH AND OTHERS Vs. RESPONDENT: CUSTODIAN, EVACUEE PROPERTY, PUNJAB DATE OF JUDGMENT: 15\/03\/1961 BENCH: MUDHOLKAR, J.R. BENCH: MUDHOLKAR, J.R. […]<\/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-242086","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nMajor Gopal Singh And Others vs Custodian, Evacuee Property, ... on 15 March, 1961 - 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\/major-gopal-singh-and-others-vs-custodian-evacuee-property-on-15-march-1961\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Major Gopal Singh And Others vs Custodian, Evacuee Property, ... on 15 March, 1961 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/major-gopal-singh-and-others-vs-custodian-evacuee-property-on-15-march-1961\" \/>\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=\"1961-03-14T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-03-22T12:06:39+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=\"19 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/major-gopal-singh-and-others-vs-custodian-evacuee-property-on-15-march-1961#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/major-gopal-singh-and-others-vs-custodian-evacuee-property-on-15-march-1961\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Major Gopal Singh And Others vs Custodian, Evacuee Property, … on 15 March, 1961\",\"datePublished\":\"1961-03-14T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-03-22T12:06:39+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/major-gopal-singh-and-others-vs-custodian-evacuee-property-on-15-march-1961\"},\"wordCount\":3485,\"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\\\/major-gopal-singh-and-others-vs-custodian-evacuee-property-on-15-march-1961#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/major-gopal-singh-and-others-vs-custodian-evacuee-property-on-15-march-1961\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/major-gopal-singh-and-others-vs-custodian-evacuee-property-on-15-march-1961\",\"name\":\"Major Gopal Singh And Others vs Custodian, Evacuee Property, ... on 15 March, 1961 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1961-03-14T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-03-22T12:06:39+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/major-gopal-singh-and-others-vs-custodian-evacuee-property-on-15-march-1961#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/major-gopal-singh-and-others-vs-custodian-evacuee-property-on-15-march-1961\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/major-gopal-singh-and-others-vs-custodian-evacuee-property-on-15-march-1961#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Major Gopal Singh And Others vs Custodian, Evacuee Property, … on 15 March, 1961\"}]},{\"@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":"Major Gopal Singh And Others vs Custodian, Evacuee Property, ... on 15 March, 1961 - 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\/major-gopal-singh-and-others-vs-custodian-evacuee-property-on-15-march-1961","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Major Gopal Singh And Others vs Custodian, Evacuee Property, ... on 15 March, 1961 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/major-gopal-singh-and-others-vs-custodian-evacuee-property-on-15-march-1961","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1961-03-14T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-03-22T12:06:39+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":"19 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/major-gopal-singh-and-others-vs-custodian-evacuee-property-on-15-march-1961#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/major-gopal-singh-and-others-vs-custodian-evacuee-property-on-15-march-1961"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Major Gopal Singh And Others vs Custodian, Evacuee Property, … on 15 March, 1961","datePublished":"1961-03-14T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-03-22T12:06:39+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/major-gopal-singh-and-others-vs-custodian-evacuee-property-on-15-march-1961"},"wordCount":3485,"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\/major-gopal-singh-and-others-vs-custodian-evacuee-property-on-15-march-1961#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/major-gopal-singh-and-others-vs-custodian-evacuee-property-on-15-march-1961","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/major-gopal-singh-and-others-vs-custodian-evacuee-property-on-15-march-1961","name":"Major Gopal Singh And Others vs Custodian, Evacuee Property, ... on 15 March, 1961 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1961-03-14T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-03-22T12:06:39+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/major-gopal-singh-and-others-vs-custodian-evacuee-property-on-15-march-1961#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/major-gopal-singh-and-others-vs-custodian-evacuee-property-on-15-march-1961"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/major-gopal-singh-and-others-vs-custodian-evacuee-property-on-15-march-1961#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Major Gopal Singh And Others vs Custodian, Evacuee Property, … on 15 March, 1961"}]},{"@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\/242086","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=242086"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/242086\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=242086"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=242086"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=242086"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}