STATE OF PUNJAB Vs. SURAJ PARKASH KAPUR
LAWS(SC)-1961-5-14
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA (FROM: PUNJAB & HARYANA)
Decided on
May 04,1961
STATE OF PUNJAB
Appellant
VERSUS
SURAJ PARKASH KAPUR
Respondents
Cited Judgements :-
SANJIT CHAKRABORTY VS. STATE OF WEST BENGAL [LAWS(CAL)-2003-12-57] [REFERRED TO]MIDWEST GRANITE PRIVATE LIMITED VS. GOVERNMENT OF A.P. [LAWS(APH)-2013-4-43] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA VS. PUNDLIK DADAJI PIPARE [LAWS(BOM)-2022-8-112] [REFERRED TO]
GOURI SANKAR MUKHERJEE VS. STATE OF WEST BENGAL [LAWS(CAL)-1977-1-4] [REFERRED TO]
BHAVAK PARASHER VS. STATE OF H.P. AND ORS. [LAWS(HPH)-2015-9-24] [REFERRED TO]
Jai Prakash Keswani VS. State of M.P. [LAWS(MPH)-2005-7-124] [REFERRED TO]
GHULAM QADIR VS. SPECIAL TRIBUNAL [LAWS(SC)-2001-10-122] [REFERRED]
MAHADEB MAHATO VS. DISTRICT INSPECTOR OF SCHOOLS [LAWS(CAL)-1986-1-1] [REFERRED TO]
SANJIT CHAKRABORTY VS. STATE OF WEST BENGAL [LAWS(CAL)-2007-6-72] [REFERRED TO]
COMPETANT AUTHORITY UNDER THE A P SLUM IMPROVEMENT ACQUISITION OF VS. IVTH ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE MUNSIFF COURT [LAWS(APH)-2002-4-71] [REFERRED TO]
SOHANLAL JAIN VS. DISTRICT COLLECTOR NAMPALLY HYDERABAD [LAWS(APH)-2002-6-124] [REFERRED TO]
BASANTA KUMAR PARAMANIK VS. BIBEKEHUSAN [LAWS(CAL)-1964-6-14] [REFERRED TO]
12 AND 16 I C BOSE ROAD TENANTS ASSOCIATION VS. COLLECTOR OF HOWRAH [LAWS(CAL)-1977-5-24] [REFERRED TO]
NARAYAN S BITE VS. MAHADEO SHRIPATI PISE [LAWS(BOM)-2001-2-33] [REFERRED TO]
IRANIKKULAM CO OPERATIVE SOCIETY VS. KUTTIKKAD SERVICE CO OPERATIVE BANK [LAWS(KER)-1974-6-1] [REFERRED TO]
REMINGTON RAND OF INDIA LIMITED VS. WORKMEN [LAWS(SC)-1969-10-84] [RELIED ON]
BHIRU MAL ALIAS BHOJU MAL AND ANR. VS. THE FINANCIAL COMMISSIONER, REVENUE AND ORS. [LAWS(P&H)-1967-4-14] [REFERRED TO]
RADHEY SHAM VS. LT GOVERNOR DELHI ADMINISTRATION DELHI [LAWS(DLH)-1969-9-19] [REFERRED]
N B MINI BUS OWNERS ASSOCN VS. DIST MAGISTRATE 24 PARGANAS NORTH [LAWS(CAL)-1989-9-23] [REFERRED TO]
SAJAL MODAK & ORS. VS. STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ORS. [LAWS(CAL)-2001-9-48] [REFERRED TO]
B VENKATESWARLU VS. DISTRICT COLLECTOR HYDERABAD DISTRICT HYDERABAD [LAWS(APH)-2002-6-6] [REFERRED TO]
K SIDDAIAH NAIDU VS. DISTRICT COLLECTOR CHITTOOR DISTRICT [LAWS(APH)-2002-8-37] [REFERRED TO]
RALLIS INDIA LIMITED VS. F.H. LALA [LAWS(BOM)-1969-8-8] [REFERRED TO]
RAJAN. P. VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(KER)-2002-5-40] [REFERRED TO]
ARUN GULAB GAVLI VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-1999-9-98] [REFERRED TO]
HOTEL AND BAR (FL3) ASSOCIATION OF TAMIL NADU (HOBAT) VS. THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT [LAWS(MAD)-2014-2-250] [REFERRED TO]
C.N. RADHAKRISHNAN VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(KER)-1985-10-42] [REFERRED TO]
K C PAZHANIMALA VS. STATE OF KERALA [LAWS(KER)-1968-7-4] [REFERRED TO]
SURJAN SINGH VS. FINANCIAL COMMISSIONER [LAWS(DLH)-2007-7-106] [REFERRED TO]
KOSARAJU VENKATA SUBBAYYA VIVEKANANDA VS. GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH [LAWS(APH)-1964-7-32] [REFERRED TO]
MAHADEB MAHATO VS. DISTRICT INSPECTOR OF SCHOOLS [LAWS(CAL)-1987-1-16] [REFERRED TO]
JAGANNATH MANDAL VS. STATE OF WEST BENGAL [LAWS(CAL)-1988-9-40] [REFERRED TO]
DAKSHA SANKHLA VS. JAI NARAIN VYAS UNIVERSITY JODHPUR [LAWS(RAJ)-2001-2-43] [REFERRED TO]
P NATARAJAN VS. DISTRICT COLLECTOR [LAWS(MAD)-2012-10-240] [REFERRED TO]
RABINDRANATH OJHA VS. STATE OF ORISSA AND 2 ORS. [LAWS(ORI)-2010-10-41] [REFERRED TO]
SANTI CHAKRABORTY VS. STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ORS. [LAWS(CAL)-1988-7-69] [REFERRED TO]
CHANDRALAL BULCHAND AMBAVANI VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [LAWS(GJH)-2021-2-355] [REFERRED TO]
BALDEVBHAI SHIVABHAI PATEL SINCE DECD.THRO HIS HEIRS VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [LAWS(GJH)-2016-8-28] [REFERRED TO]
RAM KISHORE AND ORS. VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND ORS. [LAWS(RAJ)-2015-11-14] [REFERRED TO]
PARTAP ROSIN AND TURPENTINE FACTORY VS. STATE OF PUNJAB [LAWS(P&H)-1964-12-14] [REFERRED TO]
KAIKKARA CONSTRUCTION COMPANY VS. SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER HARBOUR ENGINEERING PROJECT CIRCLE KOLLAM [LAWS(KER)-1998-12-4] [REFERRED TO]
S SOHAN SINGH VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(DLH)-2004-5-68] [REFERRED TO]
HOSHNAK SINGH VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(SC)-1979-2-5] [REFERRED TO]
ASHOK KUMAR GIRI VS. STATE OF BIHAR [LAWS(PAT)-2007-5-114] [REFERRED]
GUMAN SINGH VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN [LAWS(RAJ)-1968-11-28] [REFERRED TO]
WASHDEV SINGH BIGI VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(DLH)-1969-4-11] [REFERRED]
MATWAL CHAND VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(DLH)-2004-4-62] [REFERRED TO]
ARUN GULAB GAVLI VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-1999-10-37] [REFERRED TO]
KESORAM RAYON WORKMENS UNION VS. REGISTRAR OF TRADE UNIONS [LAWS(CAL)-1966-11-5] [REFERRED TO]
DELHI ADMINISTRATION VS. MADAN LAL NANGIA [LAWS(SC)-2003-10-75] [REFERRED TO]
MANAGEMENT OF TOURNAMULLA ESTATE VS. WORKMEN [LAWS(SC)-1973-3-24] [REFERRED TO]
GURDIAL SINGH VS. ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR [LAWS(P&H)-1970-7-22] [REFERRED]
PRABIR CHATTERJEE VS. STATE OF WEST BENGAL [LAWS(CAL)-2003-11-3] [REFERRED TO]
SOMA DEVI JAIN VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(DLH)-2005-11-116] [REFERRED TO]
PRABHU NATH PRASAD GUPTA VS. STATE OF U P [LAWS(ALL)-2003-7-216] [REFERRED TO]
JUDGEMENT
-
(1.)This appeal by certificate is preferred against the order of the Punjab High Court dates November 9, 1956, setting aside the order of the Consolidation Officer and directiny him to proceed with the matter in accordance with law.
(2.)The respondents are members of a joint Hindu family and are evacuees from Pakistan. On March 3, 1950, in lieu of the lands left by the family in Pakistan, the Custodian of Evacuee Property allotted to the said family 11 standard acres and 9 units of Grade 'A' land in Pati Kankra, Shahabad Estate in Tehsil Thanesar in Karnal District. The said units were valued as equal to 123 standard kanals and 18 standard marlas of 'A' Grade land. The family took possession of the said land, and, it is alleged, made improvements thereon. On July 28, 1954, the State Government issued a notification under S.14 of the East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948 (hereinafter called the Act), declaring its intention to make a scheme for the consolidation of the holdings. On April 30, 1955, a draft scheme was proposed by the Consolidation Officer and published Indicating, inter alia, that the respondents family would be given 84 standard kanals consisting of 50 standard kanals and 7 standard marlas of 'A' Grade land, and 34 standard kanals and 1 standard marla of 'B' Grade land. The lands proposed to be substituted for the lands already allotted on quasi-permanent tenure to the respondents family are admittedly of a lesser value than the land allotted to them earlier. The said consolidation was not made in strict compliance with the provisions of the Act, but pursuant to administrative directions given to the Consolidation Officer by the State Government. Broadly stated, under the said directions the Consolidation Officer was directed to take into consideration, for the purpose of consolidation, the number of acres held by the evacuee and not the actual valuation at site of the land allotted to him. The objections filed by the respondents were rejected by the Consolidation Officer. By an order dated August 6, 1958, the Settlement Commissioner confirmed the scheme propounded by the Consolidation Officer. Meanwhile, the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act (44 of 1954) became law; it came into force on October 9, 1954,i.e., after the Estate had been notified for consolidation of holdings. On March, 24, 1955, the Central Government issued a notification under S. 12 of the Displaced Persons Act (44 of 1954) acquiring all the evacuee properties to which that Act applied. This notification was issued before the scheme of consolidation was confirmed by the Settlement Commissioner, on February 23, 1956, the Central Government issued a sanad conferring proprietary rights on the respondents in respect of the lands allotted to them in 1950. This sanad was issued after the order of the Settlement Commissioner confirming the scheme of consolidation. On November 9, 1955,i.e., before the said sanad was issued to them the respondents filed a petition in the High Court of Punjab under Art. 226 of the Constitution praying for the issue of an appropriate writ to quash the said scheme of consolidation. The High Court by its final order dated February 1, l957, allowed the said objection and issued a direction to the Consolidation Officer to proceed with the matter before him in accordance with law.
(3.)Mr. Khanna, learned counsel for the State, raised before us the following two points: (1) The respondents had no legal right to maintain the petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution. And (2) the directions issued by the State Government were validly issued and, therefore, the Consolidation Officer was within his rights to formulate the scheme on the basis of those instructions.
(2.)The respondents are members of a joint Hindu family and are evacuees from Pakistan. On March 3, 1950, in lieu of the lands left by the family in Pakistan, the Custodian of Evacuee Property allotted to the said family 11 standard acres and 9 units of Grade 'A' land in Pati Kankra, Shahabad Estate in Tehsil Thanesar in Karnal District. The said units were valued as equal to 123 standard kanals and 18 standard marlas of 'A' Grade land. The family took possession of the said land, and, it is alleged, made improvements thereon. On July 28, 1954, the State Government issued a notification under S.14 of the East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948 (hereinafter called the Act), declaring its intention to make a scheme for the consolidation of the holdings. On April 30, 1955, a draft scheme was proposed by the Consolidation Officer and published Indicating, inter alia, that the respondents family would be given 84 standard kanals consisting of 50 standard kanals and 7 standard marlas of 'A' Grade land, and 34 standard kanals and 1 standard marla of 'B' Grade land. The lands proposed to be substituted for the lands already allotted on quasi-permanent tenure to the respondents family are admittedly of a lesser value than the land allotted to them earlier. The said consolidation was not made in strict compliance with the provisions of the Act, but pursuant to administrative directions given to the Consolidation Officer by the State Government. Broadly stated, under the said directions the Consolidation Officer was directed to take into consideration, for the purpose of consolidation, the number of acres held by the evacuee and not the actual valuation at site of the land allotted to him. The objections filed by the respondents were rejected by the Consolidation Officer. By an order dated August 6, 1958, the Settlement Commissioner confirmed the scheme propounded by the Consolidation Officer. Meanwhile, the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act (44 of 1954) became law; it came into force on October 9, 1954,i.e., after the Estate had been notified for consolidation of holdings. On March, 24, 1955, the Central Government issued a notification under S. 12 of the Displaced Persons Act (44 of 1954) acquiring all the evacuee properties to which that Act applied. This notification was issued before the scheme of consolidation was confirmed by the Settlement Commissioner, on February 23, 1956, the Central Government issued a sanad conferring proprietary rights on the respondents in respect of the lands allotted to them in 1950. This sanad was issued after the order of the Settlement Commissioner confirming the scheme of consolidation. On November 9, 1955,i.e., before the said sanad was issued to them the respondents filed a petition in the High Court of Punjab under Art. 226 of the Constitution praying for the issue of an appropriate writ to quash the said scheme of consolidation. The High Court by its final order dated February 1, l957, allowed the said objection and issued a direction to the Consolidation Officer to proceed with the matter before him in accordance with law.
(3.)Mr. Khanna, learned counsel for the State, raised before us the following two points: (1) The respondents had no legal right to maintain the petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution. And (2) the directions issued by the State Government were validly issued and, therefore, the Consolidation Officer was within his rights to formulate the scheme on the basis of those instructions.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.