# Ba.rant R.o.m ' v. Union of India - **Citation:** [1962] Supp. 2 S.C.R. 733 - **Court:** Supreme Court of India - **Decided:** 1962 - **Bench:** P. B. GAJENDRAGADKAR andK. N. WANC1HOO - **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/ba-rant-r-o-m-v-union-of-india-2341 - **Pages:** 9 ## Headnote Evacuee Property--Inclub 'Court in Civil Writ Petition No. 30 of 1956. ,.. . R. 8. Nnru.la, for tho appellants. B. J(. Khanna and I'. D. 11! enon, for the res· pondents . .'::. 1,. Prmdhi, for the intcrvenNs. l962. .J 11nuarv 24. Tho .Tudgrnf\nt of the Conrt was dn\jvC'rod hy \VAis<'·HOO, J.-This is !tn app<'al by special knve against fhe nrdnr <'f .1]1P P11nj11h High Conrt 2 S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 735 summarily rejecting a petition filed by the appellants under Art. 226 of the Constitution. The bfr:f facts neceEsary for present purposes are these, The appellants migrated in 1947 from what is now West Pakistan and settled in two villages, viz., Sheikhapintl anr'I Kot.la. They were given temporary allotment of agricultural land in the two villages under the East Punjab Evacuees' (Administration of Property) Act, (No.XIV of 1947) then in force. Thereafter a scheme was formulated in 1948 for q11asi-perm&nent allotment of agricultural land to ownerR of land in West Pakistan after the East Punjab Refugees (Registration of Claims) Act, (No. VIII of 1948) was enacted. In July 1949, a notification was issued stating the condition under which allotm ## Text 2 s.c.R. SUPREME COURT .REPORTS 733 Taylor's Medical Jurisprudence (1956 Edn.) Voi. 1, at page 122, some cases ar~ given showing that hairs were identified as belonging to particular persons. Thus, we have besib 'Court in Civil Writ Petition No. 30 of 1956. ,.. . R. 8. Nnru.la, for tho appellants. B. J(. Khanna and I'. D. 11! enon, for the res· pondents . .'::. 1,. Prmdhi, for the intcrvenNs. l962. .J 11nuarv 24. Tho .Tudgrnf\nt of the Conrt was dn\jvC'rod hy \VAis<'·HOO, J.-This is !tn app<'al by special knve against fhe nrdnr <'f .1]1P P11nj11h High Conrt 2 S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 735 summarily rejecting a petition filed by the appellants under Art. 226 of the Constitution. The bfr:f facts neceEsary for present purposes are these, The appellants migrated in 1947 from what is now West Pakistan and settled in two villages, viz., Sheikhapintl anr'I Kot.la. They were given temporary allotment of agricultural land in the two villages under the East Punjab Evacuees' (Administration of Property) Act, (No.XIV of 1947) then in force. Thereafter a scheme was formulated in 1948 for q11asi-perm&nent allotment of agricultural land to ownerR of land in West Pakistan after the East Punjab Refugees (Registration of Claims) Act, (No. VIII of 1948) was enacted. In July 1949, a notification was issued stating the condition under which allotment of awicultural land would be made to displaced persons from West Pakistan. This allotment was quasi permanent in the smse that it was to remain in force so long as the land was t.o remain vested in the Custodian of Evacuee Property. In pursuance of this notification, land was allotted in the two villages to the appellants on quasi-permanent basis in I \.149 and the appellants have remained in posseRsion thereof eversince. Originally Jann was classified into two kindR, namely, (i) urban m;d (ii) agricultural land. Later in 1949, how<"ver, a third classification, namely sub-urhan was also introd11ceCl in practice with respPC't tv agricultural land in the neighbourhood of Cl3rtain towns and a notification seems to have been issued with reRpect to that specifying the villages land in which was considered to be a sub-urban (vide Chap. V of Land Settlement Manual by Tarlok Singh). But the two village~ in which land was allotted to the appellants were not included in the notification with respect to sub-urban land. In August 1950 after tho quasi-permanent allotmPnt in favour of the appellants had hnen 1962 Basont lln to the allottl'.es therein. The . appellants objected before the Director General of Rehabilitation to the villages being graded ns sub·urb&n. The Director General called for a report from the Revenue Assistant (Rehabilitation) and eventually passed an order on January 12, 1951 that it was not desirable at that stage to cause any disturbance to the allotments made in theae two villages by declaring them .sub.urban and that the atatm quo should continue. This however did not end the matter and in February, 1952 the Director of Rehabilitation passed en order in effect declaring these vilhges 11.8 sub-urr·an with the result that the allotment ma.do to the appe1Iants would havo to be reduced. It also appears thi.t some order was p&11scd in April, 1952 on paper alloting the extra land which would be rele&llt'd from the allotment of the appellants to other persons who have a11pearl'd as intervcners in this appeals. But thi~ ordi>r rPmained merely on pa.per and has not been carried mlt so far. When the appellants came to know of the order of February ~!). 11152, they filed a revision before the Custodian Guneral for setting aside that order. The revision ,rame up before the Dl'put y Custodian General for hearing in January l 9fi6. By then however certain changes in the law and the Rules had been made. Firstly, there was an amendment in r. 14 (6) of die Ari ministration of Evarm·e prope1 ty (Central)Ruks fr'lmed under the Administration of Evacuue prop<'rty Act, (Centrn.l Act XXXI of 1950). Further, the Displacrd persons (Compensation and Rrhabilitation) Act, Centrnl Act XLIV of 1954, (hereinaftt'r n·ferr~d to as the Act) had b!'en pnssed. Undl'r tho amenrlmr·nt tn r. 14(n) power mt~ gil't'll for canc<'llatinn or variatio11 of any 2 S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 737 allotment of rural eva~uee property on a quasipermanent basis, where the allotment was to be cancelled or varied in accordance with the general or special order of the Central Government. It appears that in the meantime correspondence passed between the Punjab Government and the Central Government and an order under the amended r. 14 (6) (iii) (d) was obtained on October 11,1955. Therefore, when the revision came up before the Deput1 Custodian General he held that in view of r. 14 (6) (iii) (d) of the Rules it was open to the Central Government by special order to direct cancellation or variation of the allotment made in thjs case in favour of the appellants and that the Central Government had on the representation of the Punjab Government agreed to declare thes.e two villages as sub·urban by its order dated October ll, 1955; therefore he held that whatever was being done after October 11, 1955 was in pursuance of the order of the Central Government. He therefore held that the impugned order of February 29, 1952, even if it was revisable, no longer held the field and action was to be taken in future under the order of the Central Government passed on October 11, 1955. Therefore, the revisions had become infructuous and he dismissed them. Then followed the writ petition by the appellants in the Punjab High Court, which was dismissed summarily. As leave was refused by the High Court, the appellants applied for special leave to this Court, which was granted; and that is how the matter has come up before us. The main contention on behal£ of the appellants before us is that after the coming into ·force of the Act and the notification made thereunder on March 24, 1955 under s. 12, the land allotted to the appellants in the two villages. ceased to be evacu'le property and became part of the compensation pool created thereunder a.nd therefore the Central 1962 Basani Rom y, Union •/Jr.di• WancMo J. 1115! B.-&... v. u,.;.,, of btdi• WacAooJ. 738 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [ 1962] SUPP. Government had no. power left to act under the Central Act XXXI of 1950 and tho Rules framed thereunder. In consequence the order pa.sscd, by the Central Government on October II, 1955 on the basis of which the Deputy Custodian General rejected the revision petitions filed on behalf of the appellants was not within the competence of the Central Government and no action could bo taken by virtue of that order declaring the two villages as sub-urban. Therefore it was not open to the authorities under the Central ActXXXI of 1950 to take any action under that order with the object of varying the allotment made in favour of the appellants by reducing the area allotted to thorn. It is further urged that whatever further action has to be taken after the notification dated March 24, 1955 can only be taken under the Act and that no such action has in fact boon taken. We are of opinion that there is force in this contention of the appellants and it must prevail. Section 12( I) of the Act provides that "if the Central Government is of opinion that it is necessary to acquire any evacuoo property for a pubJic pur· pose, being a purpose oonneoted with the rei'ief and rehabilitation of displaced persons, including payment of compensation to euch persons, the Central Government may at any time acquire such evacuee property by publishing in the Official Gazette a notification to the effect that the Central Govern· ment bas decided to acquire such evacuee property in pursuance of this section". Sub-section (2) then provides that "'on the publication of a notification under sub-section (l), the right, title and interest of any evacuee in the evacuee property specified in the notification shall ......... be extinguished and the evaonee property shall vest absolutely in the Central Government free from all encumbrances." Sub· section ( 4) provides that all evacuee property acquired under this section shall form part of the 2 S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 73U compensation pool. Section 14 provides for the constitution of a compensation pool. Section 16 gives powers to the Central Government for the management of the compensation pool, including the appointment of such officers as it may deem fit (referred to as managing officers) or constitution of such authority or corporation, as it may deem fit (re,ferred to as managing corporations). Section 17 provides for functions of managing officers and managing corporations. Section 19, which is important, provides that "notwithstanding anything contained in any contract or any other law for the time being in force but subject to any rules that may be made under this Act, the managing offlcer or managing corporation may cancel any allotment or termina1e any lease or amend the terms of any lease or allotment under which any evacuee property acquired under this Act is held of occupied by a person, whether such allotment or lease was granted before or after the commencement of this Act." Rules have been framed under the Act specifying the circumstances under which a managing officer or a managing corporation may cancel an allotment or terminate a lease or vary the terms of any such lease or allotment (see r. 102). It is not in dispute that the evacuee property in these two villages was notified under s.12(1) of the Act on March 24, 1955. The cone!lquence of that notification is that all rights, title and intE•rest of the evacuee in the property cease~ with the result that the property no longer remamed evacuee property. Once therefore the property ceased to be evacuee property it can not be dealt with under the Central Act No. XXXI of 1950 or the Rules frameAYATULLAH ·and J.C. SHAH, JJ.) Central Exci.e-Control oj tobacco-System of auction8Licence for storage-Repeal qf state law-Cochin and Travancore enactments, if lau• c.orrespond1"ng to Central E.xcises Act-'' Excise duty", meaning of-Cochin Tobacco Act, 1084 (Cochin 7 of 1084 M. E.)-1'ravancore Tobacco Regulation, 1087 (Travancore 1of1087 M.E.) -Finance Act, 1950 (25 of 1950), 88. 11(1), 13 (2). In 1909 the Ruler of the erstwhile State of Cochin enacted the Cochin Tobacco Act of 1084 (M.E.) with the object of controHing the cultivation, production, manufacture, storage and sale of tobacco. Rules were framed under the Act for regulating the cultivation, possession, transportation and sale of tobacco and a system of licensing was introduced for that purpose. Licences for storage \Vere to be annual and to be issued on payment of licence fee. The authorities administering the provisions of the Act and the Rules framed thereunder were the Commissioner of Excise and his subordi" natcs, The system in force for the collection of tobacco revenue was to auction what were called A class and B class shops. A law similar to that prevailing in Cochin was promulgated in 1911 by the Ruler ofTravancore as the Travancore Tobacco Regulation of 1087 (M.E.). The two States merged themselves in 1919 as the State ofTravancore Co<"Mn but the two Acts continued to remain in force in the respective territories. On April I, 1950, after the Constitution of India pad come into force and Travancore Cochin had become a 19111 B .. antB.,. •• U•U..of l•'i• --