MITHOO SHAHANI MITHOO SHAHANI Vs. UNION OF INDIA
LAWS(SC)-1964-3-9
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Decided on March 10,1964

MITHOO SHAHANI Appellant
VERSUS
UNION OF INDIA Respondents





Cited Judgements :-

DAYA RAM VS. RESHMU [LAWS(HPH)-1965-6-3] [REFERRED TO]
STATE VS. SADH RAM [LAWS(HPH)-1973-1-1] [REFERRED TO]
MANGHERU VS. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH [LAWS(HPH)-1981-7-1] [REFERRED TO]
KONKANA RAVINDER GOUD VS. BHAVANARISHI CO OPERATIVE HOUSE BUILDING SOCIETY HYDERABAD [LAWS(APH)-2003-9-113] [REFERRED TO]
NARAYANAN SANKARAN MOOSS VS. STATE OF KERALA [LAWS(KER)-1965-2-32] [REFERRED TO]
KARAM CHAND THAKAR DASS VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(P&H)-1966-1-18] [REFERRED TO]
RAJINDER LAL VS. OM PARKASH MADAN [LAWS(P&H)-1971-10-3] [REFERRED TO]
PUSHPA VS. MUNICIPAL COUNCIL JODHPUR [LAWS(RAJ)-1999-2-65] [REFERRED]
SOHAN KANWAR VS. BOARD OF REVENUE [LAWS(RAJ)-2001-8-46] [REFERRED TO]
JAI NARAIN MODI VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN [LAWS(RAJ)-2003-8-20] [REFERRED TO]
SAVITRI DEVI VS. SANTA [LAWS(HPH)-1981-11-7] [REFERRED TO]
MANGHERU VS. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH [LAWS(HPH)-1981-7-8] [REFERRED TO]
MUNICIPAL COUNCIL, PALI VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN [LAWS(RAJ)-2013-2-129] [REFERRED TO]
CHETAN DAS VS. D C S C [LAWS(ALL)-2015-3-20] [REFERRED TO]
BIHARI LAL BATRA VS. CHIEF SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER RURAL PUNJAB CHANDIGARH [LAWS(SC)-1964-3-13] [REFERRED]
STATE OF GUJARAT VS. PATIL RAGHAV NATHA [LAWS(SC)-1969-4-13] [REFERRED]
MOHD YUNUS VS. URBAN IMPROVEMENT TRUST [LAWS(RAJ)-1999-5-30] [REFERRED TO]
PARCY CHAUHAN VS. STATE OF H.P. [LAWS(HPH)-1978-12-2] [REFERRED TO]
DIAL CHAND AND ORS. VS. HARI CHAND [LAWS(P&H)-1980-4-42] [REFERRED TO]
SILCHAR ELECTRIC SUPPLY LTD. VS. SECRETARY TO THE GOVT, OF ASSAM POWER (ELECTRICITY) MINES AND MINERALS DEPT. AND ORS. [LAWS(GAU)-1968-9-1] [REFERRED TO]
CHETAN DAS VS. DEPUTY CHIEF SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER AND ORS. [LAWS(ALL)-2015-3-230] [REFERRED TO]
KALYAN SINGH VS. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS [LAWS(P&H)-1968-4-27] [REFERRED TO]
RAMCHANDRA VS. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, HANUMANGARH AND ORS. [LAWS(RAJ)-2016-3-16] [REFERRED TO]
GHEWAR CHAND VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN [LAWS(RAJ)-2017-8-34] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

- (1.)The appeal, by special leave, is directed to question the correctness of an order passed by the Deputy Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Rehabilitation under S. 33 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954 (Central Act XLIV of 1954) which for convenience will be referred to hereafter as the Act.
(2.)The facts necessary to appreciate the point urged before us are briefly these: The property in dispute is agricultural land of an extent of about 60 acres situated at Nizamabad in the former State of Hyderabad and now in the State of Andhra Pradesh. On September 7, 1950 the Deputy Custodian of Nizamabad District allotted 44 acres of this land to five persons who are the respondents before us. All these five were displaced persons and were entitled to this allotment. By a further order dated July 21, 1951 the balance of the 16 acres and odd was also allotted to them. The allotment was by way of lease and one of its stipulations was that the terms of the lease would be revised only after five years. The only point that needs to be stated about the terms of this lease is, that there was no condition imposed upon the lessees that they should cultivate the lands personally. While the lease was continuing in force, the Government of India issued a press note on November 13, 1953 by which they announced that they had decided to allot evacuee agricultural land in Hyderabad State to displaced persons whose claims for agricultural lands had been verified under the Displaced Persons (Claims) Act. 1950. It further stated that the allotments would be towards the settlement of claims in respect of their agricultural lands. The allotment was to be on the same terms as under the quasi-permanent allotment scheme in the Punjab and applications for allotment were invited from persons residing inter alia in Hyderabad State whose verified claims included a claim for agricultural lands. The press note prescribed the 31st of December as the last date for the receipt of these applications. The appellants made an application in pursuance of this notification and on May 4, 1954, the land now in dispute, though under a subsisting lease in favour of the respondents, was allotted to them on quasi-permanent tenure. It is not disputed that the appellants satisfied the qualifications for making applications under the press note and for being allotted evacuee property thereunder. The order of allotment, a copy of which was forwarded to the Collector of Nizamabad district, contained a request that the allottees may be put in possession of the land and the fact intimated to the office of the Regional Settlement Commissioner. The revenue authorities acting on this request or direction dispossessed the respondents from the lands leased to them and put the appellants in possession thereof.
(3.)Thereafter, the respondents made a representation to the Regional Settlement Commissioner, Bombay pointing out that they were displaced persons who having been rehabilitated by the allotment by way of lease were now being uprooted. They also pointed out that they had incurred large expenses in improving the land and bringing it into proper cultivation. These applications were considered by the Regional Settlement Commissioner who by his order dated July 10, 1954 rejected their application. It is not necessary to set out the reasons for making this order except to say that one of them was the failure on the part of the lessees to personally cultivate the lands. The respondents, then, moved the Regional Settlement Commissioner requesting him to review his order and they also sought relief from the Government of India seeking intervention in their favour.


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.