# GRAM PANCHAYAT OF VIIJ.AGE, JAMALPUR v. MALWINDER SINGll & ORS - **Citation:** [1985] Supp. 2 S.C.R. 28 - **Court:** Supreme Court of India - **Decided:** 1985-07-09 - **Case number:** Civil Writ No. 2657 of 1970 - **Bench:** Y.v. CHANDRACHUD, S. Murtaza Fazal Ali, v.o. TULZAPURKAR, o. CHINNAPPA REDDY, A. Varadarajan - **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/gram-panchayat-of-viij-age-jamalpur-v-malwinder-singll-ors-9195 - **Pages:** 23 ## Headnote Constitution of India 1950, Articles 31, 31A, 254 Seventh Schedule List II Entry No. 18 and List III Entry No. 41. Assent of President to law sought for specific purpose - c Efficacy of assent - Limited to that purpose and cannot be extended beyond it. Law made by Parliament - Law made by State Legislature - Inconsistency - Which law to prevail. State Legislature whether competent to make law relating to agrarian reform in respect of property which by process of law vested in Central Government or Custodian. Administration of Evacuee Property Act 1950, Section 8 (2) & Punjab Village Co111110n Lands (Regulation) Act 1953. Section 3 Central Act and State Act - Conflict - Whether exists - Evacuee E property - Vesting of - Shamlat-deh lands nature of - Explained. Prior to the partition of India, the Shamlat-deh lands in Punjab were owned by the properietors of the other lands in the village, "Hasab Rasad Khewat" in the same proportion in which they owned the other lands. A person who did not own any other F land in the village could therefore have no proprietary right or interest in Shamlat-deh lands. There were some villages in Punjab which were mostly inhabited by Muslima, with the result that al.most all the lands in those villages were owned by Muslim ,:-roprietors who, as a result of their proprietary interest in those lands had a proportionate undivided share in the ShamlatG deb lands· They had only an 'undivided' share in the Shamlat-deh lands because such lands were not liable to be partitioned they could not be alienated and they were intended to be used and were in fact used, without exception, as undivided property of the proprietors of the other lands. Some of the villages in Punjab and many in Haryana were inhabited partly by Muslims and partly H by non-Muslima. • - f GRAM PANC!IAYAT v, MAI.WINDER SINGH 29 After the partition as a result of the unprecedented moveA ment of population, most of the Muslims proprietors migrated to Pakistan whereas the non-Muslims continued to live in their villages. Multidimensional interlinked problems of administration of the properties of those who hsd left the country and rehabilitation of those that hsd poured into the country arose. The question as to the management and the preservation of the property left by Muslim evacuees led to the passing of the East Punjab Evacuees (Administration of. Property) Act, 14 of 1947. Section 4 · thereof provided that all interests in the property whether movable or immovable of the evacuees vested in B the Custodian appointed by the State Government. This Act of the c State Legislature, was repealed and replaced by an Act passed by the Parliament, the Administration of Evacuee Property Act, 1950. That Act came into force on APril 17, 1950. As a result of this provision the interest of all evacuees which had vested in the Custodian under the Punjab· Act 14 of 1947, came to be vested in the Custodian appointed under the Central Act of 1950. In the D villages which were wholly inhabited by Muslims and from which almost the entire population migrated to Pakistan, all the Sham.lat-deb lands together with the other proprietary lands were declared evacuee property and came to be vested in the Custodian. In the villages which were inhabited both by Muslims and nonMuslims, the proprietary holdings of the Muslim evacuees vested in the Custodian and along with that the interest of the proprieE tors in the Shamlat-deh lands, such as it was also vested in the Custodian. In the writ petitions filed in the High Court the controversy was between the right of the Gram Panchayats to the Sham.lat-deb lands situated in those villages which fell within . F their jurisdiction and, on the other hsnd, the right of Rehabilitation Department of the Central Govemment to allot lands of thst description, to the extent of the · evacuee interest therein, to persons who migrated from Pakistan to India after the partition of the Country. G · The contention of the Central Govemmen ## Text _Characters 0–39,972 of 55,645. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39972 for what follows._ 28 A GRAM PANCHAYAT OF VIIJ.AGE, JAMALPUR v. MALWINDER SINGll & ORS. JULY 9, 1985 B [Y.v. CHANDRACHUD, CJ,, S. MURTAZA FAZAL ALI, v.o. TULZAPURKAR, o. CHINNAPPA REDDY AND A. VARADARAJAN, JJ.] Constitution of India 1950, Articles 31, 31A, 254 Seventh Schedule List II Entry No. 18 and List III Entry No. 41. Assent of President to law sought for specific purpose - c Efficacy of assent - Limited to that purpose and cannot be extended beyond it. Law made by Parliament - Law made by State Legislature - Inconsistency - Which law to prevail. State Legislature whether competent to make law relating to agrarian reform in respect of property which by process of law vested in Central Government or Custodian. Administration of Evacuee Property Act 1950, Section 8 (2) & Punjab Village Co111110n Lands (Regulation) Act 1953. Section 3 Central Act and State Act - Conflict - Whether exists - Evacuee E property - Vesting of - Shamlat-deh lands nature of - Explained. Prior to the partition of India, the Shamlat-deh lands in Punjab were owned by the properietors of the other lands in the village, "Hasab Rasad Khewat" in the same proportion in which they owned the other lands. A person who did not own any other F land in the village could therefore have no proprietary right or interest in Shamlat-deh lands. There were some villages in Punjab which were mostly inhabited by Muslima, with the result that al.most all the lands in those villages were owned by Muslim ,:-roprietors who, as a result of their proprietary interest in those lands had a proportionate undivided share in the ShamlatG deb lands· They had only an 'undivided' share in the Shamlat-deh lands because such lands were not liable to be partitioned they could not be alienated and they were intended to be used and were in fact used, without exception, as undivided property of the proprietors of the other lands. Some of the villages in Punjab and many in Haryana were inhabited partly by Muslims and partly H by non-Muslima. • - f GRAM PANC!IAYAT v, MAI.WINDER SINGH 29 After the partition as a result of the unprecedented moveA ment of population, most of the Muslims proprietors migrated to Pakistan whereas the non-Muslims continued to live in their villages. Multidimensional interlinked problems of administration of the properties of those who hsd left the country and rehabilitation of those that hsd poured into the country arose. The question as to the management and the preservation of the property left by Muslim evacuees led to the passing of the East Punjab Evacuees (Administration of. Property) Act, 14 of 1947. Section 4 · thereof provided that all interests in the property whether movable or immovable of the evacuees vested in B the Custodian appointed by the State Government. This Act of the c State Legislature, was repealed and replaced by an Act passed by the Parliament, the Administration of Evacuee Property Act, 1950. That Act came into force on APril 17, 1950. As a result of this provision the interest of all evacuees which had vested in the Custodian under the Punjab· Act 14 of 1947, came to be vested in the Custodian appointed under the Central Act of 1950. In the D villages which were wholly inhabited by Muslims and from which almost the entire population migrated to Pakistan, all the Sham.lat-deb lands together with the other proprietary lands were declared evacuee property and came to be vested in the Custodian. In the villages which were inhabited both by Muslims and nonMuslims, the proprietary holdings of the Muslim evacuees vested in the Custodian and along with that the interest of the proprieE tors in the Shamlat-deh lands, such as it was also vested in the Custodian. In the writ petitions filed in the High Court the controversy was between the right of the Gram Panchayats to the Sham.lat-deb lands situated in those villages which fell within . F their jurisdiction and, on the other hsnd, the right of Rehabilitation Department of the Central Govemment to allot lands of thst description, to the extent of the · evacuee interest therein, to persons who migrated from Pakistan to India after the partition of the Country. G · The contention of the Central Govemment and, of persons to whom its Rehabilitation Department has·allotted the Shamlat-deh lands on their migration to India, is thst the interest in such lands, of the Muslims who migrated to Pakistan is evacuee property which the Central Govemment has the right to allot under the provisions of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and H Rehabilitation) Act of 1954. The contention of the Govemment of 30 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1985] SUPP.2 s.c.R. A Punjab and ·of the Gram Panchayats in Punjab and Haryana is that, by reason of the provisions of the .Punjab Village Common Lands {Regulation) Act of 1953, the interest of all persons whether Hindus, Sikhs or Muslims, in the Shamlat-deh lands stood extinguished and those lands were placed by the said Act under the control and power of the respective Gram Panchayats. B c The High Court held that there was repugnancy between the provisions of the Administration of Evacuee Property Act of 1950 and those of the Punjab Village Common Lands ·(Regulation) Act of 1953. Allowing the appeal to this Court, BEU>: (By the Court) 1. There is a direct conflict between section 8(2) of the Administration of Evacuee Property Act 1950, and Section 3 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1953 on the question of vesting of evacuee property. [38 A] 2 •. The Punjab Act was reserved for the assent of the PresiD dent though for the specific and limited purpose of Articles 31 and 31-A of the Constitution. That assent can not avail the State Government for the purpose of according precedence to the law made by the Legislature namely the Punjab Act of 1953 over the law made by the Parliament namely the Central Act of 1950 even within the jurisdiction of the State. [41 F,42 F] E F G H llabnan v. Sai ILR 9 Lahore 501 & Banjil: Singh v. State of Punjab [1965] l SCR 82 referred to. ' Rattingan 's Digest of Customaty Law in the Punjab - Chapter X referred to. {Per CbaDdraclwd c.J., s. Muttaza FazaJ. Ali, v.n. Tulzapurkar 8Dd A. Varadarajan, JJ.) · l. (i) A mere reading of tile two sections, Section 3 of the Punjab Act of 1953 and section 8(2) of ·the Central Act of 1950 would show that there is a direct conflict between the two provisions. Under s.4 of the East Punjab Evacuees (Administration of Property) Act 14 of 1947 which came into force on December 13, 1947 all interest in the property, movable or immovable, of the evacuees vested in the Custodian appointed by the State Government. ·The Central Act of 1950 repealed by the East Punjab Act 14 of 1947. Under s. 8(2) of the Central Act of 1950 the evacuee - 1 GRAM PANCHAYAT V• MALWINDER SINGH 31 property which was vested in the Custodian appointed by the State Government under the repealed Act, was to be deemed to be evacuee property declared as such under the Central Act and_became vested in the Custodian appointed under the Central Act. [38 A-BJ (ii) As a result of s. 3 of the Punjab Act of 1953 the Custodian appointed under the Central Act of 1950 was divested of the Shamlat--deh lands, to the extent of the interest therein of the Muslim propri.etors who had migrated to Pakistan. [38 DJ (iii) If the Punjab Legislature had not passed the Act of 1953, the Custodian appointed or deemed to be appointed under the Central Act of 1950 could have dealt with the interest of the Muslim evacuees in the Shamlat--deh lands as evacuee property, though consistently with the limitations which operated upon that interest. He forfeited that power because, the Punjab Act of 1953 extinguished the interest of all persons, whether Hindus, Sikhs or Muslims, in the :shamlat--deh lands and vested all rights, title and interest in such lands in the respective panchayats having jurisdiction over the village. [38 FJ z. Article 254 of the Constitution deals with situations where th~re is inconsistency between the laws made by the Parliament and the laws made by the Legislature of a State. Since the law made j>y the Legislature of the State of Punjab namely, s. 3 of the Punjab Act of 1953 is repugnant to the law made by the Parliament which the Parliament was competent to enact namely s. 8(2) of the Central Act of 1950, the law made by the Parliament must prevail and the law made by the Punjab Legislature has _to be held to be void to the extent of the repugnancy. The repugnancy is to the extent that whereas under the Central ~t the interest of the evacuees in all properties including the Shamlat--deh lands vests in the Custodian appointed or deemed to be appointed under that Act, the Shamlat--deh lands vest in the Panchayats under the provisions of the State Act. [39 B-FJ 3. The Punjab Act of 1953 was reserved for consideration of the President and received his assent on Decempber 26, 1953. Prima facie by reason of the assent of the President, the Punjab Act would prevail in the State of Punjab over the Act of the Parliament and the Panchayats would be at· liberty ~o deal with the Shamlat--deh lands according to the relevant Rules or Bye-laws governing the matter, including the evacuee interest therein. The Punjab Act was reserved for Che assent of the President though for the specific and limited purpose of Articles 31 and A B c D E F !I 32 SUPREME COURT REPORTS · [1985] SUPP.2 s.c.R. ~ A 31-A of the Constitution. Since the Punjab Act of 1953 extinguished all private interest in Shamlat-deh lands and vested those lands in the Village Panchayats and since the Act was a measure of agrarian reforms it wae reserved for tbe considertion of the President. [41 E-F,H-42 A] B In ·the instant case, the assent of the President is sought t<> the law for a specific purpose, the efficacy of the assent would be limited to that purpose and cannot be extended beyotld it. Not only was the President not appraised in the instant case that hie asse'lt was sought because of the repugnancy between the State Act and the pre-eidsting Central Act on the vesting of evacuee properties but his assent was sought for a different C specifi~ purpose all together. [42 ll-E) 4. Though the law made by the Parliament prevaila over the law· made by the State Legislature the interest of the e~uees in the Shamlat-deh lands cannot be dealt with effectively by the Custodian under the Central Act because of the peculiar incidents characteristics of such lands. The unfortunate result is that D the vesting in the Custodian of the evacuee interest in the Shamlat-deh lands is more or less an empty formality. It does not help the Cwltodian to implement the provisions of the Central law but it excludes the benign operation of the State Law. {42 H-43 A] . E 5. Parliament has passed a law which falls under entry No. 41 of the Concurrent List, while the State Legislature has passed a law which falls under Entry No. 18 of the State List. The law passed by the State Legislature being s measure of agrarian reform is conductive to the welfare of the comnumity and there is no reason why that law should not have effect in its full ampli- · F tude. By this process, the village panchayats will be able to meet the needs of the village cOlllllJDity and secure its welfare. ( 43 F] . 6. The Punjab Act of 1953 would prevail in the State of Punjab over the Central Act of 1950 even in ~o far as Shamlat-deh lands G are concerned. [43 G] 7. Under the Central Act of 1950, the Custodian is entitled to preserve and manage the interest of the evacuees in all evacuee properties, which would include the Shamlat-deh lands• Under the Punjab Act of 1953, the Shamlat-deh lands vest in the PanchaH yat which carries the right of preservation and management of such lands. By reason of the State Act, the Custodian appointed under the Central Act of 1950 is divested of his Control over the j GRAM PANCHAYAT v. MAUIINDER SINGH 33 evacuee interest in the S'1amlat-deh lands. The impact of this divestment, is that the Rehabilitation Department of the Central Government. loses its power to allot such lands, to the extent of the evacuee interest therein, to displsced persons in order to satisfy their claims under the Displsced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitstion) Act, 1954. Such properties therefore, csnnot from part of the Compensstion pool. Nor csn these properties, to the extent of the surplus remaining after allotment to displaced persons, be transferred by the Central Government to the State Government, under the 'Package Deal' of 1961. What vests in the Custodian is the interest of the evacuee as such together with all the interests to which it is subject. That interest cannot be freed from its incidents merely because it comes· to be vested in the Custodian u evacuee property. The Custodian gets what the evacuee had, quantitatively and qualitatively. If the evacuees interest in Shsmlat was incapable of alienation and if Shamlat-deh lsnda were regarded as reserved for the cOD1110n use; the Custodian would have no right to allot them for the separate or exclusive use of diaplaced persona who migrated to India after the partition of the Country. If no allotment could be made under the Displsced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act,1954 there would be no question of any aurplus and, consequently, no occasion to transfer 'surplus' land to the State Government. The peculiar incidents of co-sharer'• interest in the Shamlat-deh lands, and the severe limitations operating upon that interest renders the provisions .of the Central Act of 1950, virtually innocuous and inoperative. The Custodian under that Act would have the hW.k of the title to the evacuees' interest in the Shsmlat-deh lands as a result of the vesting of that interest in him, but beyond such vesting he would be powerless, in practice, to distribute those lands to the displaced persons. [39 G-40 F] 8. The hall'"1118.rk of the Shamlst-deh lands is their indivisibility and inalienability. (40 ~] (Per Qdnnappa lleddy, J. coacurring) 1. The question in the pi:,esent case is not whether there was any conflict between the Central and Stste Legislations but whether the legislature of the State could make a lsw relating to agrarian reform in respect of property which included property which by a process of law has become vested in the Central Government or the Custodian. [49 H-50 BJ A B c D E F G H 34 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1985) SUPP.2 s.c.R. A 2. When the Par limnent and the State Legislature, each of them legislate in their own field with respect to different subjectsin t~.ia case Evacuee Property and the Shamlat-deb, no reason is fourul to conclude that there was necessarily a conflict between the two legislations. (49 H) · B 3. There is no reason to why the State Legislature abould be considered incompetent to make a law relating to agrarian reform. The !.'unjab Act of 1953 is iwleed a law relating to agrarian reforms even though it affects lawls veated in the Central Goveroment or the Cuatodian. (50 B] 4. The effect of the Administration of Evacuee Property Act c was not to take away the Character of Sbsmlat-deh as Shamilat-deb but only to vest in the Custodian such interest as the evacuee possessed in the Shamilat-deb. The interest which the erstwhile evacuees possessed was neither enlarged nor abridged. The land continued to be Shamilat-deh and it could be the subject of competent State Legislation as Shamilat-deb· If for the purpose of agrarian reform the legislature of the State enacted a law as D it was competent to do and consent was accorded by the President uwler Article 31-A of the Constitution, there is no justification for the argument that there was any conflict . between the Punjab Act and the Central Act. [49 D-E] 5. It would be wholly wrong to suggest that the zamindari f E becoming vested in the Custodian on account of the Muslim zamindari (intermediary) llligrating to Pakistan, raiyati land in the village changed its character and the occupancy ·rights of the raiyats ceased in the lawls, merely because ·the Zamindar llligrated to Pakistan and the Zamindari became vested in the Custodian. Similarly l&nds in an erstwhile Zamindari set apart for pasture, F as grazing grounds etc. did not lose their character as such on the llligration of the Zamindar to Pakistan. (49 F-G] CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 140l(N) of 1973. G From the Judgment and Order dated 15.5.1973 of the Punjab H and Haryana High Court in Civil Writ No. 2657 of 1970. S.L.Aneja and K.L.Taneja for Appellant No. 1. Hardev Singh and R.S.Sodhi for· Appellant No. 2. ,; GRAM PANCHAYAT,v. MAI.w!NDER SINGH [CHANDRACHUD, CJ.] 35 N.C.Talukdar, c.v. Subba Rao, R.N. Poddar and Miss A. Subhashini for the Respondent No. 2. S .Ram Singh Bindra and Harbans Singh for the Respondent ~ No. 1. . The following Judgments were delivered CHANDRACHUD, C.J. Eight writ petitions were filed in the High Court of Punjab and· Haryana, involving a conmon question of law as to the alleged repugnancy between the Administration of Evacuee Property Act of 1950 and, the Punjab Village CollllllOn Lands (Regulation) Act of 1953 (referred to herein as 'the Punjab Act of 1953'). Four, out of the eight writ petitions, relate to lands situated in the State of Haryana, while the remaining four relate to lands situated in the Sta.te of Punjab. The controversy in the writ petitions is between the right of the Gram Panchayats to the Shainlat-deh lands situated in those villages which fall within their jurisdiction and, on the other hand, the right of the Rehabilitation Department of the Central Government to allot lands of that description, to the extent of the evacuee interest therein, to persons who migrated from Pakistan to India after the partition of the country. The contention of the Central Government and, of persons to whom its Rehabilitation Department has allotted the Shamlat-deh lands on their migration to India, is that the interest, in such lands, of the Muslims who migrated to Pakistan is evacuee property which the Central Govermnent has the right to allot under the provisions of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act of 1954. On the other hand, the contention of the Govermnent of Punjab and of the Gram Panchayats in Punjab and Haryana is that, by reason of the provisions of the Punjab Act vf 1953, the interest of all persons, whether Hindus, Sikhs or Muslims, in the Shainlat-deh lands stood extinguished and those lands were placed by the said Act wider the control and power of the respect! ve Gram Panchayat. Prior to the par ti ti on of India on August 15, 194 7 the Shainlat-deh lands in Punjab were owned by the proprietors of the other lands in the Village, "Hasab Ra.sad Khewat", that is to say, in the same proportion in which they owned the other lands. Therefore, a person who did not own any other land in the village could have no proprietary right or interest in the Shamlat-deh lands, But, though the interest of the proprietors of the other lands, in Shainlat-deh lands, was incidental to their proprietary A B c D E F G H 36 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1985] SUPP.2 s.c ... A interest in those other lands, such interest in the Shamilat - not a mere appendage to their interest in the other lands. Our learned Brother Chinnsppa Reddy, has referred in his jlJli&mant to a leading decision of the Lahore High Court, I.;ɾ v. s.t ILll. 9 Lahore 501 in which it was held that ,if a proprietor alienated his land, the alienee would not acquire llllY interest in the ll Shamilat by mere virtue of the alienation. That was but cooee quential to the well -established legal position in Punjab that the Shamlat-deh lands were intended for the COlllDOn use of all sharers. c lJ F G H There were some villages in Punjab which were mostly inhabited by Muslims, with the result that almost all the lands in those villages were owned by Muslim proprietors who, as a result of their proprietary interest in those lands, had a proportionate undivided share in the Shamlat-deh lands. They bad only an 'undivided' share in the Shamlat-deh lands because such lands were not liable to be partitioned, they could not be alienated and, they were intended to be used and were in fact used, without exception, as undivided property of the proprietors of the other lands . Indeed, our learned Brother has cited a passage from Rattigan's 'Digest of the Customary Law in the Punjab', which shows that Shamlat-deh lands were treated as reserved for common village purposes. Some of the villages in Punjab and many in Haryana, were inhabited partly by Muslims and partly òy non-Muslims. Most of the Muslim proprietors migrated to Pak.is ::an whereas, the non-Muslims continued to live in their villages. The question as to the management and preservation of the property left by Muslim evacuees led to the passing of the F.ast Punjab Evacuees (Administration of Property) Act, 14 of 1947. That was an Act of the Punjab Legislature, section 4 of which provided that all interests in the property whether movable or immovable, of the evacuees vested in the Custodian appointed by the State Government. That Act, like similar Acts passed by the other State Legislatures, was repealed and replaced by an Act passed by the Parliament, viz; the Administration of Evacuee Property Act, 1950, to which we will refer as the 'Central Act of 1950'. That Act came into force on April 17, 1950. Section 8(2) thereof provided that, if any property in the State had vested immediately before the commencement of the Act as evacuee pro perty in any Custodian .under any law repealed by the Act, that property shall, on the commencement of the Act, be deemed to be evacuee property and shall vest in the Custodian appointed for r . t GRAM PANCHAYAT v. MAI.WINDER SINGH (CHANDRACHUD,CJ.] 37 the State . under the Ac,t. As a result of this provision, the interest of all evacuees which had vested in the Custodian under the Punjab Act 14 of 1947, came to be vested in the Custodian appointed under the Central Act of 1950. In the villages which were wholly inhabited by Muslims and fr0m which almost the entire population migrated to Pakistan, · all the Shamlat-deh lands together with the other proprietary lands were declared evacuee property and came to be vested in the Custodian. In the villages t which were inhabited both by Muslims and non-Muslims, the proprietary holdings of the Muslim evacuees vested in the Custodian and, along with that, the interest of the proprietors in the Shamlat-deh lands, such as it was, also vested in the Custodian. The point which arisea for our consideration and which has been answered i~ the affirmative by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana is whether, there is any repugnaucy between the provisions of the Central Act of 1950 and those of the Punjab Act of 1953. (The latter Act has been referred to by the High Court as A I! c the Act of 1954 beacuse, though passed in 1953, it was numbered D as Act l of 1954). Section 3 of the Punji;b Act, which is said to be the focal point of the repugnancy, reads thus, in so far as relevent "3. Vesting of rigbta in l'allcbayats ad in DOll"'pEOprietora: Nocwithstandill8 1\11Ythill8. to the contrary contained in any other law for the time beill8 in force•••••••••all rights, title and interest Whatsoever in the land - (a) which is included in Shamlat-deh of any village, E shall, on the apppointed date, vest in a Panchayat F ha;;ing jurisdiction over the village". Section 8(2) of the Central Act of 1950 reads thus "Where, illmediatly r.efore the coamencement of this Act, any property in a State had vested as evacuee G property in any person exercising the powers of Custodian under any law repealed hereby, the property shall,. on the c0111De11cement of this Act, be deemed to be evacuee property declared as such within the meaning of this Act, and shall be. deemed to have vested in the Custodian appointed or deemed to have H been appointed for the State under this Act and shall continue to so vest.·· A B c D E F G H 38 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1985] SUPP.2 S.C.R. A mere reading of the two sections, namely, section 3 of the Punjab Act of 1953 and section 8(2) of the Central Act of 1950, would show that there is a direct conflict between the two provisions. Under section 4 of the East Punjab Evacuees (Administration of Property) Act 14 of 1947, which came into force on December 13, 1947 all interest in the property, movable or immovable, of the evacuees vested in the Custodian appointed' by the State Government. The Central Act of 1950 repealed the East Punjab Act 14 of 1947. Under section 8 (2) of the Central Act of 1950, the evacuee property which was vested in the Custodian appointed by the State Government under the repealed Act, was .to be deemed to be evacuee property declared as such under the Central Act and became vested in the Custodian appointed under the Central Act. Thereafter came the Punjab Act of 1953 under which, "Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in any other law for the time being in force", all rights, title and interest whatsoever in the Shamlat-deh lands of any village, came to be vested in the Panchayat having jurisdiction over the particular village. It is quite clear that as a result of this provision, the Custodian appointed under the Central Act of 1950 was divested of the Shamlat-deh lands, to the extent of the interest therein of the Muslim proprietors who had migrated to Pakistan. If the Punjab Legislature had not passed the Act of 1953, the Custodian appointed or deemed to be appointed under the Central Act of. 1950 could have dealt with the interest of the Muslim evacuees in the Shamlat-deh lands as evacuee property, though consistently with the limitations which operated upon that interest. He forfeited that power because, the Punjab Act of 1953 extinguished the interests of all persons, whether Hindus, Sikhs or Muslims, in the Shamlat-deh lands and vested all rights, title and interest in such lands in the respective Panchayats having jurisdiction over the village. It may be mentioned that the Punjab Act of 19)3 was repealed and replaced by an Act of 1961, bearing a similar title. That Act defines the Shamlat-deh lands in a slightly different manner but, that difference is inconsequential for resolving the controversy which arise before us. Having seen that there is a direct conflict between section 8(2) of the Central Act of 1950 and section 3 of the Punjab Act of 1953 on the question of vesting of evacuee property, the question which arises is as to which of these two Acts w6uld prevail. That question has to be answered in the light of the provisions of the Constitution. Entry No. 41 in List Ill (Concurrent List) of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution, reads thus : -\ t GRAM PANCHAYAT v. MAL.WINDER SINGll [CHANDRACHUD,CJ.j 39 "Custody, management and disposal of (including agricultural land) declared by evacuee property''. property law to be ·since the interest of the evacuees in the Shamlat-deh lands was deemed to be declared as evacuee property, both the State Legislature and the Central Legislature had the power to deal with that interest by virtue of Entry No. 41. Article 254 of the Constitution deals with situations where there is inconsistency bet:Ween the laws made by the Parliament and the laws made by the Legislature of a State. Clause (1) of that Article, to the extent that it is relevant, reads thus : "(1) If any provision of a law made by the legislature of a State is repugnant to any provision of a law made by Parliament which parliament is competentto enact, •••••• , then, subject to the provisions of clause (2), the law made by Parliament, whether passed before or after the law made by the Legislature of such State, •••• shall prevail and the Law made by the Legislature of the State shall,to the extent of the repugnancy, be void." Since the law made by the Legislature of the State of Punjab, namely, section 3 of the Punjab Act of 1953, is repugnsnt to the law made by the Parliament which the Parliament was competent to enact, namely, section 8(2) of the Central Act of 1950, the law llit.de by the Parliament must prevail and the law made by the Punjab Legislature has to be held to be void to the extent of the repugnsncy. The repugnsncy is to the extent that whereas, under the central Act, the interest of the evacuees in all propertiea, including the Shamlat-deh lands, vest in the Custodian appointed or deemed to be appointed under that Act, the Shamlatdeh lands vest in the Panchayats under the provisions of the State Act. The consequences of this repugnsncy are self-evident. Under the Central Act of 1950, the Custodian is entitled to preserve and manage the interests of evacuees in all evacuee properties, which would include the Shamlat-deh lands. Under the Punjab Act of 1953, the Shamlat-deh lands vest in the Panchayats, which carries with it the right of preservation and management of such lands. In brief, by reason of the State Act, the Custodian appointed under the Central Act of 1950 is divested of his control over the evacuee interest in the Shamlat-deh lands. The A B c D E F G H A B c D F G H 40 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1985] SUPP.2 s.c.R. most significant impact of this divestment, though somewhat of an academic nature, is that the Rehabilitation Department of the Central Government loses its power to allot such lands, to the extent of the evacuee interest therein, to displaced persons in order to satisfy their clal.lμs under the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954. Such properties, therefore, cannot form part of the Compensation pool. Nor can these properties, to the extent of the surplus remaining after allotment to displaced persons, be transferred by the Central Government: to the State Government under the 'Package Deal' of 1961. We said that the impact of repugnancy is somewhat of an cicademic ~ture because, what vests in the Custodian is the interest of the evacuee such as it is, that is to say, together with all the incidents to which the evacuee interest was subject. That interest cannot be freed from its incidents merely because it comes to be vested in the Custodian as evacuee property. The Custodian gets what the evacuee had, quantitatively and qualitatively. If the evacuee's interest in Shamlat was incapable of alienation and if Shamlat- deh lands were regarded as reserved for the coannon use of the villagers, the Custodian would have no right to allot them for the separate or exclusive use of displaced' persons who migrated to India after the partition of the country. If no allotment could be made by the Custodian under the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act of 1954, there would be no question of any surplus, land, consequently, no occasion to transfer 'surplus' land to the State Government under the Packag"- Deal of 1961. The peculiar incidents of the co--