# MAJOR GOP AL SINGH AND OTHERS v. CUSTODIAN, EVACUE.E PROPERTY, PUNJAB - **Citation:** [1962] 1 S.C.R. 328 - **Court:** Supreme Court of India - **Decided:** 1962 - **Bench:** K. Subba Rao, Raghubar Dayal, J. R. Mudjiolkar - **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/major-gop-al-singh-and-others-v-custodian-evacue-e-property-punjab-2123 - **Pages:** 12 ## Headnote Evacuee Property-Quasi-permanent allotment-Cancellation of -Custodian General, powers of-Enactment vesting evacuee property in Central Government-If Custodian General still has power to cancel allotment-Administration of Evacuee Property Act, r950 (JI of r950), ss. IO, 27 -Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, I954 (44 of r954), ss. I2, 19. The appellants who are displaced persons from West Pakis- ' tan, were granted quasi-permanent allotment of some lands in . · village Raikot in 1949· On October 31, 1952, the Assistant Custodian cancelled the allotment of 14 allottees in village Karodian, and also cancelled the allotment of the appellants in Raikot but allotted lands to them in village Karodian, and allotted the lands of Raikot to other persons. The 14 allottees of village Karodian as well as the appellants applied for review of the orders of cancellation of itheir allotment. The application of the 14 allottees was dismissed. They preferred a revision to the Custodian General who cancelled the appellant's allotment (1) (r907) I.L.R. 34 Cal. 926. • .. -~- ~ .\ •. ' I S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 329 in Karodian and restored the a'llotment of the 14 allottees on 1961 December 17, 1954_, Thereupon, on January 6, 1955, the appellants moved the Custodian General for calling up their review Major Gopul appiication and for revising the or.der of October 3r, 1952, can- Singh &- Olh1rs celling their allotmenUn Raikot. The Custodian General refused v. to revise the order ()n the ground that _his power to revise had Custodian, been-taken away by the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Evacim Rehabilitation) Act,· 1954· The appellants contended that the Properly, PNnjat Custodian General had the power to revise the order. Held, that after the enactment of the_ Displaced-Persons (Compensation and _Rehabilitation) Act, 1954, the Custodian General ceased to have the power to cancel allotments. By the issuing of a notifioation under, s. 12( r) of this Act, the right, title or interest of the evacuee-in the property specified fo the notification was extinguished and the property vested absolutely in the Central Government. The right of the Custodian to manage the property uncler the Administration of Evacuee Property Act, 1950, came to an end and the man.agement vested in a new set of officers. Fven .though no. managing officer was appointed or a managii 1 S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 335 "Special procedure for payment of compensation in certain cases.-Where any immovable property M~jor Gopal has been leased or allotted to a displaced person by Singh & Others the Custodian under the conditions publishedv .. (a) by the notification of the Government of PunCustodian, jab in the Department of Rehabilitation No. 4892-S Pra/!,~;~·;unjab or 4892-S dated the 8th July, 1949, or (b) by the notification of the Government of Mudholkar J. Patiala and East Punjab States Union in the Department of Rehabilitation No. SR or 9R, dated the 23rd July, 1949, and published in the official Gazette of that State dated the 7th August, 1949, and such property is acquired under the provisions of this Act and forms part of the compensation pool, the displaced person shall, so long as the property remains vested in the Central Government, continue in possession of such property on the same conditions on which he held the property immediately before the date of the acquisition, and the Central Government may, for the purpose of payment of compensation to such displaced person, transfer to him such property on such terms and conditions as may be prescribed." It is followed by an explanation; but that explanation has no bearing upon the point urged by Mr. Achhruram. It is no doubt true that the Raikot lands were allotted to the appellants under the notification referred to in cl. (a) of this section and, therefore, they would be entitled to the benefits conferred by this section provided they satisfied all the other requirements of this section, express or implied. It is implicit in this section that th~ displaced person to whom land was allotted "held" the land and was in possession of such property at the date of the notification. It is not disputed that the appellants ceased to hold and had lost possession of the Raikot lands before the publication of this notification. Even assuming that the order of the Custodian cancelling the allotment in their favour was erroneous there will be no difference in the result because what is essential is the facts of holding and possession of the land on the date of the notification. 336 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1962] '96' Mr. Achhruram then referred to the "Conditions" Major Gopal on which allotments ofland may be made under the Singh & Others notification referred to in sub-s. lO(a) and pointed out v. that under condition no. 6 the Custodian or rehabilitaCustodian, tion authority would be competent to resume or canEuacuee eel an allotment only on one of the grounds set out in Prop'"Y· Punjab that condition. He said that the cancellation of the Mudholkar J. allotment in favour of the appellants was impermissible inasmuch as it was not based upon any of the grounds set out in the 6th condition. That ma.y or may not be so. We would repeat that the appellants had lost their possession before the publication of the notification and are thus not entitled to the protection of the section. Moreover, the Custodian, by reason of the divesting of the property, as from March 24, 1955, had become functus officio with respect to it and could not rectify any error made by him in the past in the matter of cancellation of. allotment. It is true that had the appellants been in possession at the critical time they would have had the right to obtain a permanent transfer in their favour of the Raikot lands and by virtue of what happened and without any fault on their part they have been deprived of that right. That is indeed unfortunate but none of the authorities created by the Administration of Evacuee Property Act could rectify the wrong that has been done by them to the appellant. The question whether it could be rectified by any of the authorities constituted by the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act or not was not canvassed before us and, therefore, there is no occasion for us to say anything about it. Mr. Achhruram contended that r. 74 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation ahd Rehabilitation) Rules, 1955 stood in the way of the Custodian allotting the Raikot property to the respondents during the pendency of the proceedings before the Custodian General. That rule reads as follows: "Allotments which are the subject matter of dispute.-No property in a rural area in respect of which any case is pending in a Civil Court or before a Deputy Custodian, Custodian or Custodian General, shall be transferred to the allottee". .. \ ' J J • .. r • I I S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 337 The aforesaid rule is in Chapter X headed "Payment r96r of compensation under section IO of the Act" and h £ f ll b Major Gopal deals wit a trans1er o property to an a ottee Y Singh &- Others way of final settlement of his claim to compensation v. and does not deal with the question of allotment on a Custodian, quasi-permanent basis. Moreover, this rule applies to Evacuee . a proceeding before an authority created by the Dis- Property. Pun;ab placed Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act Mudholka• J. and not to an authority created by the Administration of Evacuee Property Act. There is, therefore, no substance in this argument. Finally Mr. Achhruram referred to s. 17 of the 1954 Act and to r. 102 of the Rules framed thereunder and said that the powers of the managing officers appointed under the Act are confined only to properties which are entrusted to them for management and not with respect to any other property. Section 17 deals with the functions and duties of managing officers and managing corporation. Sub-s. (1) provides that managing officers and managing corporations will perform such functions as may be assigned to them under the Act. Sub-s. (2) provides that subject to the provisions of the Act and the rules made thereunder, a managing officer or a managing corporation may, among other things, take such measures as he or it considers it necessary or expedient for the purpose of securing, administering, preserving, managing or disposing of any property in the compensation pool entrusted to him or it ... etc. The argument is that unless there is such "entrustment" the managing officer or managing corporation has no function to perform with respect to evacuee property. His contention appears to be that there is nothing to show that this property was "entrusted" to a managing officer. In the first place the section confers the particular powers on managing officers or managing corporations only and no one else. Therefore, even if no managing officer or managing corporation was appointed with respect to that property no one else could exercise the power of cancellation of allotment. Further, there is no ground in the special leave petition or in the statement of the 43 338 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1962] r96r case that there is no entrustment in fact of this property or this class of properties to a managing officer Major Gopal • h Singh & Others or managmg corporation. He cannot, t erefore, be perv. mitted to make out a new case.at this stage of arguCustodian, ment. That apart, this argument assumes that the Evacuee . property, despite the publication of the notification Property, Pun;ab under s. 12(1) of the Act continues to be evaquee proMudholkar J. perty. Again, this provision is a general provision and the particular provision regarding cancellation of allotment is s.19(1) of the Act which does not refer to entrustment at all and it is this provision which must prevail over the general provision. He then contends that the provisions of s. 19(1) of the Act being subject to rules made under the Act must be read along with r. 102 which deals with cancellation of allotments of leases. That rule reads thus: "Cancellation of allotments and leases-A managing officer or a managing corporation may sell any property in the compensation pool entrusted to him or to it, cancel an allotment or terminate a lease, or vary the terms of any such lease or allotment if the allottee or lessee, as the case may be- ( a) has sublet or parted with the possession of the whole or any part of the property allotted or leased to him without the permission of a competent authority, or (b) has used or is using such property for a purpose other than that for which it was allotted or leased to him without the permission of a competent authority, or (c) has committed any act which is destructive of or permanently injurious to the property, or ( d) for any other sufficient reason to be recorded in writing; Provided that no action shall be taken under this rule unless the allottee or the lessee, as the case may be, has been given a reasonable opportunity of being heard." He points out that in the first place, the rule speaks of land 'entrusted ' to the manager and, therefore would operate only if entrustment is established. What we have said in regard to s. 17 would apply I S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 339 here also. He then says that this rule restricts the z96x powers of a managing officer or a managing corporaMajor Gopal tion in the matter of cancellation of allotment in the Singh & Others sense that it permits cancellation only on certain speciv. . fied grounds and, therefore, it cannot be said that Custodian, s. 19(1) of the Act is completely in conflict with s. 10 P Evacu~ . b of the Administration of Evacuee Property Act in so roper'!:_ un;a far as the question of cancellation of allotment is conMudholkar J. cerned. We cannot accept the argument because, apart from the fact that the acquired properties have ceased to be evacuee properties, cl. ( d) of r. 102 permits the managing officer or managing corporation to cancel allotment "for any other sufficient reason to be recorded in writing". The only effect of r. 102 is to permit cancellation of an allotment for reasons stated. ,. That is all. In our opinion, therefore, this rule does not help the appellants. Mr. Khanna had raised three other points but upon the view which we have taken as to the effect of ss. 12 and 19 of the Act, it is not necessary to consider them. • The appeal is accordingly dismissed. We, however, make no order as to costs because had there been no delay on the part of the Custodian General in dealing with the revision application the present situation would not have arisen. Appeal dismisserl. P. V. BHEEMSENA RAO v. SIRIGIRI PEDDA YELLA REDDI AND OTHERS (P. B. GAJENDRAGADKAR and K. N. WANOHoo, JJ.) lnam grant-Personal, burdened with service-Alienation by grantee and service discontinued-If resumable by revenue authorities-Madras Hindu Rdigious Endowments Act, No. II of I927, ss. 44-B(r), 44-B(2)(a)(l) and (ll), Board's Standing Order 54. · z96z Ma1'ch z6.