AMAR SINGH v. March 290

JAGANNADHADAS J.-This is an application under Art. 32 of the Constitution by the petitioners, Amar Singh and four others, in the following circumstances. All these five are displaced persons who owned land in the non-suburban village of Chak. No. 159-RB, Tahsil Jaranwala, District Lyallpur in Pakistan. They were also co-sharers in a joint khata owned by some evacuees in village Sultanwind, a suburb of Amritsar in East Punjab. On their displacement, they were in the first instance temporarily allotted agricultural land Sultanwind. Having regard to their original position in the village, they were allotted in the year 1 949 a total area of 38 standard acres and 13 units of agri cultural land therein. This allotment had to the following circumstances. The disturbed under Director-General of Relief and Rehabilitation (Addi tional Custodian) directed by an order dated January 7, 1950, that out of the 1,263 standard acres 1£ units of suburban land of Amritsar, 142 standard acres and 5 units were to be allotted to allottees of Provincial Gardens. This necessitated readjustment of allotments of the suburban land of Sultanwind amongst the various groups who had quasi-permanent allotment therein. As a result of this readjustment which had to be carried out according to certain rules and instructions the allotment of these five petitioners (as also of some others) was proposed for cancellation by the order of the Deputy Custodian, Amritsar, dated July 31, 1951. This proposal was approved by the Custodian (Financial Commissioner, Relief and Rehabi litation) on February 6, 1952, and the 1allotment was cancelled. The proposal and the order of cancellation are said to have been passed without notice to the petitioners. Being aggrieved thereby they moved the Custodian-General of Evacuee Property for revision thereof under s. 27 of the Administration of Evacuee SUPREME COURT REPORTS 1957 Amar Singh v. Custodiun, Evacuee Proptr!J, Punjab. JagannadhadrM J. Property Act, 1 950 (XXXI of 1950). This was dealt with by the Deputy Custodian-Genera] who dismissed the same by a fairly elaborate order dated May 1, 1954, after hearing the parties. The petitioners have come up to this Court by this application under Art. 32 of the Constitution. It is their rights The case of the petitioners is that the allotment to them was on quasi-permanent basis and that, therefore, they have acquired certain rights in the lands which constitute 'property'. They urge that the order of the Custodian cancelling the allotment and that of the Deputy Custodian-General affirming the same are in violation of their fundamental rights to property under Arts. 19(1)(f), 31(1) and 31(2) of the Constitution. They accordingly contend that they are entitled to have to property these orders quashed and declared and protected. That the petitioners are allottees of agricultural land on the basis of what has come to be known as quasi-permanent allotment is not also not disputed that cancellation disputed. thereof was under the purported exercise of powers vested in the Custodian under certain provisions of the Administration of Evacuee Property Act, 1950 (XXXI of 1950) and the rules framed thereunder taken with some executive instructions. It may be mentioned that the term "quasi-permanent allotment" appears to be a term which has come into vogue in later statutory rules and has at no time been specifica!Iy defined, though it appears to be now fairly well-understood. The two substantial questions that arise, therefore, for considera tion are ( 1) whether the rights of a quasi-permanent allot tee constitute property within the meaning of the articles above referred to, and ( 2) whether the orders of the Custodian and Deputy Custodian-General can celling the quasi-permanent allotment amount violation of fundamental rights contemplated by the above articles. Both these questions require a review of the Evac.uee Property Law in so far as it relates to the allotment of agricultural lands of the evacuees to displaced !and-holders and an appreciation of the background of the circumstances that necessitated it. 1957 Amar Singh v. Custodian, Ev(l(,uee Proper(Y, Punjab. Jagannadhadas ]. S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 805 The Declaration of Independence and the partition of India into Pakistan and India on August r 5, r 94 7, was accompanied by mass migrations of Non-Muslims from West Punjab to East Punjab and of Muslims from East Punjab to West Punjab. These mass migrations were on a stupendous scale. About five million persons are said to have moved from each side to the other. This was done in a state of panic generated by communal riots. Migrants from West Punjab reached East Punjab almost destitute. This unprecedented situation brought in its train gigantic problems of administration relating to rehabilitation and resettle ment of these persons. One of such problems was that relating to agricultural immovable property left on either side by the migrants. For purposes of convenience persons who crossed over from East Punjab to '\'est Punjab are referred to as evacuees and persons who came over from West Punjab to East Punjab are referred to as displaced persons. The displaced persons are said to have left in Pakistan lands of the extent of about 67 l,akh acres. The evacuees seem to have left in East Punjab and Pepsu, lands of the extent of about 47 lakh acre'. This meant a deficit of over 20 lakh acres for resettlement. It would appear that in the earlier stages there were attempts to settle the question by way of mutual exchanges either in iPdividually or at the govermental level and by means of inter-dominion conferences bet .ween India and Pakistan. But for one reason or other, these attempts appear to have failed. The various :.teps and administrative measures taken to settle the dis placed agricultural population who came over from West Punjab, on the hurriedly abandoned lands of the evacuees from East Punjab, are to be found described in the Land Resettlement Manual by Shri Tarlok Singh who was the Director-General of Relief and Rehabilita the Resettlement Manual). In Dunichand Hakim v. Deputy Commissioner (Deputy Custodian, Evacuee Property), K arnal ( 1 ), book has been referred to by this Court as having the It can be usefully referred to not stamp of authority. (t) [1954] S. C.R. 578. (hereinfter referred to as 1957 Amtu Singh· v. Custodian, Evactltt Property, Purg"ab. Jagannadhadas]. ' '· 806 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [ 1 957 necessarily as an authority for every statement of fact or law contained therein but as a guide to appreciate the background of the problems which the adminis tration had to face in that unprecedented situation, how the administration attempted to solve the same, what were the rules and practice which the adminis tration normally followed and considered binding on itself, and what ideas inspired the course of legislation in this behalf. It appears therefrom that within about a month after the partition of India, the Government had to take an emergency decision to allot evacuee temporary lands to groups of displaced persons on basis. But this was found not to satisfy the displaced landholders. There was insistent pressure from them for such allotment as would enable them to settle on the lands of the evacuees on a permanent basis. This led to the abandonment of the policy of temporary allotments and the introduction of a system of allot ment which came to be known as quasi-permanent allotment. This policy was announced by the Govern ment of East Punjab in its Press Communique date.cl February 7, 1948, which is reproduced at pages 28 and 29 of the Resettlement Manual. The following extract therefrom is instructive : "The East Punjab Government propose to replace the present system of temporary allotments of evacuee lands by a new system of allotments which will take account of the holdings of evacuees in ',yest Punjab. The new allotments will not confer rights of ownership or permanent occupancy, but the possession of allotted will be maintained. Claims of allottees will be dealt with in accordance with decisions reached eventually regarding the treatment of evacuee property. In the new scheme of allotments, land will be allotted only to those who, in West Punjab, were owners, occupancy tenants under the Punjab Tenancy Act, and tenants under the Colonization of Govern ment Lands Act and to certain other classes of grantees and holders of land in West Punjab to be specified by Government. It is proposed to give to small holders allotments of equivalent areas, while in the case of larger holders there will be graded cuts. The definition 1957 Amar Singh v. Custodian, EvatU• Properly, Punjab. Jagannadhadas J I S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS of the "Small Holders" and the details of the graded cuts will be determined when detailed information regarding the available areas in East Punjab and the East Punjab States, the areas held by the population to be settled in East Punjab and the East Punjab States, and other relevant information becomes available. It is intended to complete the new system of allotments in the East Punjab and the East Punjab States, not later than the 31st May, 1948. Government are, however, anxious to introduce the new scheme as early as may 'be feasible and steps to this end will be taken at once. Arrangements for collecting complete information regarding the land available for allotment in East Punjab and the East Punjab States and the land abandoned by individual evacuees will be taken in hand without delay and it is hoped also to make arrangements on a reciprocal basis to secure mation from records ofrights in \'\'est Punjab. taken on To ensure accurate information an Ordinance will shortly be promulgated prescribing punishment for false information regarding claims to land and action by way of forfeiture and otherwise in respect of allotments information. Claims to land will be invited on a form to be prescribed by Government. Until the new system of allotments can be introduced, the present system of allotments will continue and allotments made to the present holders will be maintained subject to a complete scrutiny of ex1stmg allotments, cancellation of unauthorised and excessive allotments, dispossession from illicit occupa tion and such other adjustments as may be necessary including adjustments in the unit of allotment decided upon by Government." To facilitate the process of resettling the displaced persons on evacuated land on this new basis of allot ment various steps became necessary. They are roughly the following.

#1. Registration and verification of land claims. 2. Assessment and valuation of such claims. 808 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (I 95 7} 1957 Amar Singh v. Custodian, Evacuee Property, Punjab, Jagannadhadas J.

#3. Classification of the villages and of lands of evacuees available for allotment.

#4. Allocation of the claims to various areas with reference to such classification.

#5. Allotment of lands to individuals with reference to the valuation of their claims, guided by various considerations, priorities and preferences and so forth administrati\"elv determined. The basic 'idea which inspired and regulated these measures was that the displaced landholder is to be allotted (subject to graded cuts) such lal!ds out of the evacuee agricultural Lrnd which, in its extent, quality and other rdc1·ant features, bear some reasonable relation and correspondence to the lands left by him in \\'est Punjab. All these steps involved very elabo \ \' e rate administrati1·e measures as indicated above. are concerned in this context to trace the lcg; islation which brought about these to examine whether and to what extent such legislation recognised property rights in the displaced land-holders. But before tracing the legislative measures which brought about the quasi-permanent allotments of evacuee lands in favour of displaced land-holders from \\'est Punjab, it will be convenient to have a brief survey of the its aprlication to administration of present Jaw in evacuee property of all kinds history of such of the provisions therein as arc relevant for. our purpose and then to consider rekv<mt legislati1·e measures taken specifically with reference to agricultural land. in general with steps and The earliest legislative measure in this behalf i; the East Punjab Evacuees' (Administration of Property) Ordinance, 1947, (E.P. Ordinance IV of 1947) dated Sertember 14, 1947, which was a simple measure defining- the terms 'evacuee', 'evacuee property', and 'Custodian of evacuee property' and other terms, and authorising the appointment of a Custodian. It gave the Custodian power to take possession of evacuee necessary and property and to take all measures expedient for preserving such property. It vested in him extensive powers of management thereof. This was an emergency measure which appears to have 1957 Amar Si11gh '" Custodian, Evacuee Proper!)'. Punjab. Ja.r;annadhada~ ]. S.C.R. SUPREi\1E COURT REPORTS 809 been meant to get possession of the properties as a care-taker. This was superseded and followed by a series of legislative measures which underwent modifi cations from time to time. These legislati\'e measures were in the first instance Provincial, ~i·i:;.., East Punjab Evacuees' (Administration of Property) Act, 1g47 (E.P. XIV of 1947) ; East Punjab £,·acuees' (Adminis tration of Propert\') (Second Amendment) Ordinance, 19.1B (E.P. Ordinance XVI of 1948) ; East Punjab E\·acuees' (Administration of Property) (Second Amend ment) Act, 1948 (E.P. XLIX of 1948 ) ; and East Punjab Evacuee Property (Administration) Ordinance, 1949 (E.P. Ordinance IX of 1949). These Provincial measures were repealed and superseded by Central legislation, viz., :\clrninistration of Evacuee Property Ordinance, 1949 1,0rdinancc XX.VII of 1949) amended by the Administration of E\'acuee Property (Amend ment) Ordinance 19'.)0 :Ordinance IV of 1950). These were repealed and superseded by the Administration of Evacuee Property Act, 19,50 \XXXI of 1950). The main prm is ions of Central Act XXXI of 1950, \\·hich, \\·ith some modifications, is at present in force, may now be noticed so far as they arc relevant. U ndcr ss. 5 and 6 of the Act an administrative machi ncn· consisting of Custodians, Additional, Deputy and Assistant Custodians of EYan1cc Property,. is set up for each State by the State Gm·crnment thereof. Tltey are under the general superintendence and control of a Custodian-General appointed by the Central-Govern ment \\·ho has, for his assistance, Deputy and Assistant Custodian-Generals, who are also appointed by the Central Government. The 'eYacuee property' arc defined in s. 2ld) and (f) and the Custodian is gi,-cn power to determine and notify e\'acuec property under s. 7. :\II property declared as 'evacuee property'. becomes yested in the Custodian under s. 8. The Custodian has under s. 9 the power 'evacuee property' so vested in him. Section· 1 o enumerates the powers and take possession of all 'evacuee' 1957 Amar Singh v. Custodian, Evocue1 Property, Punjab. JagannadhadlU J. 810 SUPREME COURT REPORTS duties of the Custodian generally and declares that he may take such measures as he considers necessary or expedient for the purposes of securing, administering, preserving and managing any evacuee property and generally for the purposes of enabling him satisfactorily to discharge any of the duties imposed on him by or under the Act, and may, for any such purpose as afore said, do all acts and incur all expenses necessary or incidental thereto. One of the duties laid on the Custodian is the maintenance of accounts under s. 15. Section 15( 1) says that the Custodian shall maintain a separate account of the property of such evacuee, possession whereof has been taken by him, and shall cause to be made therein entries of all receipts and expenditure in respect thereof. Section 16 provides for restoration of property to the evacuee on his appli cation and enjoins the Custodian to furnish the evacuee on demand with a statement containing an abstract of the account of the income received and expenditure incurred in respect of the property. The general powers of management vested in the Custodian under s. 10 enable him to grant leases and make allotments out of evacuee property in favour of displaced land holders. This is subject to the power vested in him under s. 12(1) to vary or cancel leases or allotments of evacuee property. There are a number of other substantive and unnecessary to refer to for the purposes of this petition. the administration of Thus, the broad features of evacuee property law, as indicated from the provisions above noticed, are the following : incidental provisions, which

#1. All evacuee property is vested in. the Custo dian.

#2. He .has the duty of managing the property and maintaining accounts for such management and has large adn:iinistrative powers.

#3. As incidental to ·such management he can grant leases and make allotments.

#4. He has the power to vary or cancel leases and allotments. S.C.R. SUPREME dOURT REPORTS 8r l

#5. The evacuee can come forward and apply for return of the evacuee property and such property is liable to be restored to him.

#6. The Custodian, presumably on such restora- tion, has to furnish to the evacuee on demand a statement containing an abstract of the account of the income received and expenditure incurred in respect of the property. 1957 Amar Singh v. Custodian, Evacuee Properry, Punjab. Jagannadhadas J. In addition to large administrative functions for the purposes of the Act, the Custodian has. also the function of deciding various matters of a quasi-judicial nature, such as ( r) whether a person is. an evacuee or whether certain property is evacuee property ; ( 2) whether a transfer of evacuee property is or is not to be confirmed ; (3) whether a lease or an allotment is or is not to be cancelled or varied ; anrl (4) whether property is to be restored to the evacuee and so forth. The actions of the Custodian and his subordinates in exercise of their administrative .as well as of quasi judicial functions are subject to appeal and revision by the higher authorities under the Act as provided under ss. 24 to 27. Section 28 provides that orders made under the above sections shall be final and shall not be called in question in any original suit, application or execution proceeding. Section 46 bars the jurisdiction of the civil or revenue courts in respect of any matter which the Custodian-General or empowered by or under the Act to determine. the Custodian The history of some of the above statutory provi- · sions as traceable from the corresponding provisions of the earlier legislation is significant. The provision vesting· evacuee property in the Custodian was not enacted in the earlier East Punjab Ordinance IV of r 94 7. But legislative it was enacted by the next measure, East Punjab Act XIV of 1947, which declared the vesting of evacuee property, and provided that the property "shall continue to be so vested until Provincial Government by notification otherwise directs." This last clause was substituted in 1948 by an Amending Act, by the clause "until it }s returned to the owner in accordance with the provisions of 1957 Amar Singh v. Cwtodian, Evat:JUe l+opmy, Pu'!l"ab. Jagannadhadas ]. 812 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [ 195 7] section 12". This clause as to the duration of such vesting was omitted in the later Central legislation and was substituted by the phrase "shall continue to so (See Central Ordinance XXVII of 1949 and vest". Central Act XXXI of 1950). The earliest provision for return of evacuee property to the evacuee is in East Punjab Ordinance IV of 1947. Section 12 thereof provided that the owner of any property in the posses sion or control of the Custodian shall be entitled to restoration thereof upon application to the Custodian and on payment of excess, if any, of expenditure over receipts from the management of such property by the Custodian. In East Punjab Act XIV of 1947 which superseded this Ordinance, this right of restoration to the evacuee was qualified by virtue of s. 12 ( 1) thereof which is as follows : returning "On being satisfied that evacuees have returned or are the Provincial the Province, Government may by notification in the Official Gazette authorise return of their immovable property to the owners in accordance with this section." Sub-section ( 2) of s. 12 provided that any person claiming to be entitled to any such property may apply in writing to the Custodian who, after giving public notice and holding an enquiry, will make a formal order declaring the person to whom possession In Central Ordi of the property may be delivered. nance XXVII of 1949 and in Central Act XXXI of 1950, the provision for restoration of property to the evacuee in s. 16 thereof is that the Custodian may, on application by the evacuee or his heir, restore to him the property subject to such terms and conditions as he may think fit to impose provided the appli cant produces a certificate from the Central Govern ment that the property may be so restored if he is otherwise entitled to it. Thus it will be seen that while the earliest East Punjab Ordinance of 1947 recognised almost an unrestricted right in the evacuee to obtain restoration of property this was changed shortly there after by the East Punjab Act of 1947 which required that such'-return by the Custodian can only follow a S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 813 notification by the Provincial Government as to its being satisfied that evacuees have returned or are returning and authorising the return of the property. The Central legislation of 1949 and of 1950 however lessened the rigour of it by requiring only a preliminary certificate from the Central Government by the indi vidual applicant concerned. 1957 Amar Singh v. Custodian, Evaciu, Property, Punjab. Jaganrwdhadas ], Next, it may be noticed that neither East Punjab Ordinance IV of 1947 nor East Punjab Act XIV of l 94 7 which replaced it refer to or define either the word 'lease' or 'allotment'. These two words were for the first time defined only by the amending East Punjab Ordinance XVI of 1948 and it was made clear therein that an allotment was different from a lease. From the historical background it would appear likely that the word 'allotment' was used for the grant of property to displaced land-holders while 'lease' was intended to denote a temporary grant to other displaced persons. But even so the temporary character of the right 'allotment' was specified by involved in the word defining 'allotment' as meaning the grant by the Cus todian of a temporaiy right of use and occupation of evacuee property to any person otherwise than by way of lease. This temporary character of the right was reiterated also in East Punjab Ordinance IX of 1949 and in Central Ordinance XXVII of 1949· It is only in Central Act XXXI of 1950 that by s. 2(a) thereof the word 'temporary' in the definition of the word 'allotment' was dropped and 'allotment' is defined as meaning the grant by a person duly authorised of a right of use or occupation of an immovable evacuee property to any other person but does not include a grant by way of a lease. Thus the legislation of l 950 for the first time contemplated that allotment may be otherwise than temporary. This Act as well as the previous Central Ordinance completely omitted 'lease'. These changes were definition of the word apparently necessitated by the fact that, in between, Punjab Government notification dated July 8, 1949, came into operation providing for what has become subsequently known as quasi-permanent allotment. 1957 Amar Singh v. Custodian, Evacuee Profurty, Pury°ab, Jagunnadhadas J. SUPRE11E COURT REPORTS The provisions of that notification and the legal effect thereof will be noticed in due course. and Acts themselves, time being We may next trace the provisions in the various Acts relating to the power of cancellation of allot ments in so far as they appear from the body of the leaving main Ordinances aside-for the time being-the rules framed under. It may be mentioned that in the rest of the judgment in noticing the statutory provisions which deal with leases and allotments together, all reference to leases are omitted for the sake of simplification. The earliest provision in this behalf is s. 9-A of East Punjab Act XIV of 1947 which was inserted into it by East Punjab Ordinance XVI of 1948 replaced by East Punjab Act XLIX of 1948. Sub-section (2) of s. 9-A provides that notwithstanding anything contained in in force, the any enactment for Custodian may cancel any allotment or amend the terms of any agreement on which any evacuee property is held or occupied by any person, whether such agree ment was entered into before or after the coming into force of East Punjab Ordinance XVI of 1948. It is further provided by sub-ss. (3) and (4) thereof, that if a person is in unauthorised possession of any evacuee property the Custodian may treat such person either as a trespasser and that a person treated as a trespasser, on concellation of allotment, shall, on demand surrender possession to the Custodian. The subsequent East Punjab Ordinance IX of lr49, Central Ordinance XXVII of 1949 and Central Act XXXI of 1950 contain substantially the same provi sions relating to cancellation of allotments. It may be mentioned that all these legislative measures had a section relating to rule-making power right from the time of East Punjab Act XIV of 1947 and also a provision that the provisions of the Act and the rules made thereunder shall have effect notwithstanding in any enactment therewith inconsistent anything other than that Act. (See ss. 2~ and 18-B of Esta Punjab Act XIV of 1947 and ss. 55, 56 and 4 of Central Act XXXI of 1950.) By virtue of this tenant or as a 1957 Amar Singh v. CustoC.ian, Eva.:11e8 Property, Punjab. Jagannadhadas ]. S.C.R. SUPREME COURT R"'.PO'!'.rs rule making power, the Provincial Government and the Central Government made rules from time to time, -,.-~which will be noticed presently. · From the above history of alterations at short intervals in some of the main relevant provisions, it is clear that the legislation was being adjusted from time to time with reference the exigencies and difficulties of the different problems which had to be grappled with, both in the matter of internal adminis tration as also on account of inter-dominion conferences It may be mentioned between Pakistan and India. that during the two year period between in 1947 and the first Central there were as many as six-inter dominion conferences, i.e., in January 1948, April 1948, July 1948, December 1948, April 1949 and June 1949· . Provincial legislation Y.legislation in 1949 ~ originally contemplated without any _ . .of, by restriction, the Custodian. Such is that all evacuee property Stopping here it will be seen that the position, m its general aspect, vested in the Custodian. But the evacuee has not lost his ownership in it. The law recognised his ulti mate ownership subject to certain limitations. The evacuee may come back and obtain return of his property, as also an account of the management there- return which was subsequently dependent on a notification or a certi ficate of the Central Government. Until such return the Custodian may manage the property by granting allotments in favonr of displaced persons. The nature of an allotment is clear from its definition that it is grant of the right of use and occupation. This in the first instance was contemplated as being only tempo rary. By a later definition, it was made wider so as not to be restricted to a temporary use and occupation. is clearly subject to the power of But the allotment the Custodian, which were undergoinl" alterations In such a situation it would prima facie be difficult to· 1 will entitle him to obtain its possession. Such from time to time. 0 ~~cancellation thereof vested • 7-99 s.c.!./59 1957 Am!Zr Singh v. Custodian, Evacutt Prop!rty, Punjab. Jagannadhadas J. 816 SUPREME COURT REPORTS recognise the allottee of any evacuee property in so far as his position is governed by the main pr~visions of the Evacuee Property Administration Acts ( unaffect to any particular ed by any specific rules applicable class of property or any specific arrangement contract), as a person having some kind of property or having a recognised interest therein which by itself constitutes 'property'. It is ;nore in the nature of a licence which is liable to be cancelled by the grantor. It may be mentioned that there appear to be certain rules made by the East Punjab Government dated August 6, 1948, under East Punjab Act XIV of i :14 7 as amended in 1948 relating to cancellation of allot ments. But the text of these rules was not available to us. However this may be, it is urged that certain other legislative measures and sta>utory rules maue in exercise of the statutory powers, have made a differef!ce in respect of allotments of in the position arising in favour of displaced agricultural lands granted persons in East Punjab who landed property in It is, therefore, necessart to review the West Punjab. same. The first measure for the resettlement of the dis placed land-holders of \'\'est Punjab on evacuee lands was the East Punjab Refugees (Registration of Land Claims) Ordinance, 1948 (E.P. Ordinance VII of 1948) which was replaced by East Punjab Refugees (Regis tration of Land Claims) Act, 1948 (E.P. XII of 1948). It is in pursuance of the rules framed under this Act that what is known as the Parcha claim and the form therefor were standardised calling for accurate infor mation as regards quite a large number of details which had to be taken into consideration in determin ing the land to be allotted to a displaced land-holder. This was followed by the East Punjab Displaced Persons (Land Resettlement) Ordinance, 1949 (E.P. Ordinance XIV of i949) which was replaced by the East Punjab Displaced Persons (Land Resettlement) Act, 1949 (E. P. XXXVI of r949). This Act was meant "to provide for the allotment of evacuee lands in East Punjab". The right of an allottee to possession of the 1957 All"ar Singh v. Custodian, Evacuee Property, Punjab. Jagannadhadas J. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 817 the Custodian." The word land allotted subject to payment of rent, etc., to the Custodian or his right to a share in the rent from the present holder thereof (that is, the cultivating occupant), if any, and other incidents arising from such posses In between these two sion were specifted in this Act. Acts, notification No. 4892/S dated July 8, 1949, was issued by the Punjab Government in exercise of the rule-making power vested in it under els. (f) and (ff)of sub-s. (2) of s. 22 of East Punjab Act XIV of 1947 as amended in 1948. This notification sets out statement of conditions on which the Custodian could grant allotments of land vested in him. This notifi cation is virtually the charter of the rights of allottees. It is the basis of what has come to be known as the In the rules set out i11 quasi-permanent allotment. this notification a 'displaced person' i~, defined as 'a land-holder in West Punjab etc.' and it is specified that, "an allotment sha11 be made in favour of a displaced person and for a period for which the land remains vested in 'allottee' defined as including "heirs, legal representatives and It ma-,r be mentioned in this lessees of the allottee. context that East Punjab Displaced Persons (Land Resettlement) Act, 1949, mentioned above, which was rules were notified also passed shortly after defines 'allottee' and says that allottee the word means "a displaced person to whom land is allotted by the Custodian under the conditions published with East Punjab Government notification No. 4.892/S dated July 8, 1949 and representatives and sub-lessees." Thus the definitions of the word 'allottee' in the rules of July 8, 1949 and under the Act passed shortly thereafter recognise not only that an allotment is to be in favour of a displaced land-holder for the period the land is vested in the Custodian but that it enures for the benefit of his heirs and legal representatives. Therefore, the first incident of allotment implicit in this is the heritability of the rights of the allottee which constitute quasi-permanent allotment nuder the above mentioned notification of July 8, 1949. Various other rights are specified in includes his heirs, 1957 Amar Singh v. Custodian, Evacuee Property, Pu11jab. Jagannadhadas J. SUPREME COURT REPORTS els. 3, 4, 5, 7 and 8 of the said notification. These will be summarised later. But it is to be noticed that the allotment itself is subject to resumption cl. (6) thereof. Before considerii:ig the nature of the interest which these various clauses of the notification confer on the quasi-permanent allottee, it is necessary to see how far this notification of July 8, 1949, is affected by subsequent legislation and the rules framed thereunder. Now the East Punjab Evacuee Property Adminis tration Acts were repealed and replaced by Central Ordinance XXVII of 1949 and Central Act XXXI of i 950. Both the Central Ordinance and Central Act had each a section, s. 53 and s. 55 respectively, under which the Central Government may delegate its rule In exercise of making power to the State Government. such delegated power the State Government issued a notification No. 1554-Cust. dated February 6, 1950 ' the relevant portion of which is as follows : "The Provincial Government is pleased to notify that Statement of Conditions issued by the Custodian and published ·under the notification No. 4.891/S and l 949, shall be deemed 4892 /S dated the 8th July, to be and shall continue to remain in force as framed by the Provincial Government under sub-section (z) of section 53 of the Central Ordinance No. XXVII of 1949 under delegation from the Central Government under Notification No. 3094-A/Cus/49 2nd December, 1949, subject to the following modifications and amendments : (i) The rules as stated in the Statement of Condi tions under notification Nos. 4891/S and 4892/S dated the 8th July, 1949, shall be called the Administration of Evacuee Property (Rural) Rules, 1949· (ii) Definition. (a) The word 'ACT' defined m !he said Statement of Conditions shall mean Adm~nistration of Evacuee Property Ordinance, 1949 \Ordmance No. XXVII of 1949). ,, ............................................................... The above rules of July 8, 1949, have, cominued to be operative as therefore, rules made under the • • S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 819 - . 1 1957 t ereo h b . fi , s· h n.maring v. l 950, entitled Administration of Jatannadhadas J. Central Ordinance. On the repeal of the Central Ordi- nance by Central Act XXXI of 1950 and by virtue of s. 5 e 1n orce as t ese rues contmue to 8 tho'ugh they are rules made under the Central Act of Custodian, Eva_cuee Property, Pun; ab. 1950. Further, the Central Government framed rules on .September 28, Evacuee Property (Central) Rules, 1950, v,·hich will be noticed presently. Later, in exercise of the delegated rule-making power vested in the Provincial Govern- ment under s. 55 of the Central Act, the Punjab Government framed rules dated August 29, 1951, entitled "Instructions for review and revision• of land allotment." These two sets· of subsequent rules w<;mld affect the rules of July, 1949, to the extent that any of them are inconsistent with rules. A comparison of the subsequent rules with the earlier rules of July 8, 1949, shows that the later rules do not concern any of the matters provided by the earlier rules of l 950) excepting as regards the provisions relating to resumption-which virtually is cancellation-of allotments. Hence the rules of July 8, 1949, continue to be in force except to that extent, if any. The portion which has undergone, if any, variation by subsequent rules may now be noticed. the earlier (and l 949 The provision for resumption in the rules published by the Punjab Government in its notification of July 8, l 949, is as follows : "6., The Custodian, or as the case may be, the Rehabilitation Authority shall be CO{llpctent to resume, amend, withdraw, or cancel the allotment on any of the following grounds : (a) It is contrary to the orders of the East Punjab Government, or the instructions of the Financial Com missioner, Rehabilitation, or the Custodian, Evacuee Property, East Punjab ; (b) The allottee has infringed or appears to be preparing to infringe any of the terms of allotment ; (c) The allotment was obtained by false declaration or insufficient information or is contrary to the purpose of rehabilitating the displaced persons ; 820 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [ 1957 J 1957 Amar Sin5h v. Custodian, Evacuee ProjJttty, Punjab. Jagannadhadas J. ( d) The area allotted or occupied by the allottee is more than he was authorised to take on allotment or occupy under the East Punjab Government or the Financial Commissioner, Rehabilitation, or the Custodian, Evacuee Property, East Punjab ; instructions issued by . ( e) V.'here the claims of other parties with respect to the land have been established or accepted by the Custodian or the Rehabilitation Authority ; (f) \\Then the allottee has been convicted of an offence under the Act ; or (g) If the allottee fails to take possession of the land within the time as may be allowed by the Custo dian or the Rehabilitation Authority, or after having taken possession, fails to cultivate the land or a part thereof." The next set of rules arc those made nnder Central Act XXXI of 1950. Rule 14 of Central Rules, 1950, is the following : "14. (1). ·················································· ... (2) In case of an allotment granted by the Custodi:rn himself, the Custodian may eYirt a person on any ground justifying eviction of a tenant under any la\\· relating to the Control of Rents for the time being in force in the State concerned, or for any violation of the conditions of the allotment. (3) The Custodian may evict a person who has secured an allotment by misrepresentation or fraud or if he is found to be in possession of more than one e\'acuee property or in occupati011 c•f accommodation in excess of his requirements. (4) ........................................••......•........... " It wi'H b~ seen that the above proYisions are not in themseh·es pm,·ers of cancellation or modification of allotment bHt are supplementary thereto authorising eviction of an allottcc nndcr the circumstances indicated therein. The next set of rules in this connection are rules dated August 29, 1951, enacted by the Punjab Government in exercise of powers delegated to it by the Central Government under s. 55 ( r) of Central Act • 1957 Amar Singh v. Custodian, Evacute Property, Punjab. Jngannadhadas ] • S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS In so far as these rules relate to allot XXXI of 1950. ment~ els. (a) to \g) of r. ( 1) thereof are virtually the same as those relating to resumption in the notification I 95 r of July 8, 1949. The additions thereto in rules are the following : . ) . \ " ( 1) The Custodian shall be competent to cancel or terminate any allotment or vary the terms of any allotment or agreement and evict the allottee in any one of the following circumstances : (a, to (g1 .............................................. , ...... . (h) that it is necessary or expedient to cancel or vary the terms of an allotment for the implementation of resettlement schemes and/or rules framed by the State Government ; or for such distribution amongst displaced persons as appears to the Custodian to be equitable and proper : or is necessary or expedient to cancel or vary the terms or an a llntment for the preservation, ur the proper administration, or the management of such property or in the interests of proper rehabilita tim1 of displaced persons. (i) that it (2)' Anything done or any action taken in exercise of any power confcrrecl by the previous rules shall be deemed to have been done or taken under these rules, as if they were in force on the day on which such thing was done or action was taken." A dose scrutiny will show that as regards resumption or cancellation of (quasi-permanent) allotments made under the notification of July, 8, r 949, the Central Rules of 1950 do not make anv alteration by r. 14 then of but gi\'e only supplementary powers of eviction certain contingencies. The rules of August 2q, 1951, made by the Punjab Go\'ernment under delegated authority will be fou11d on comparison to be substan tially the same as those enumerated in cl. (6) of July, 8, 1t149, 11otification under the heading 'Resumption' with th<' addition of els. (h) and (i) and ·with an addi tional clause gi\'ing retrospective operation to the new rules. Rule 14 of the Central Rules, l 950, has been subse quently modified by notification No. S. R. 0. l 722 dated 1957 .A.mar Singh v. Custodian, Er'acuu Proptrty, Punjab. SCPREME COURT REPORTS October 29, 1951, by adding sub-r. (6) which 1s as follows : / \ ) '- to override the State Rules are "V\'herc any State Government has, in exercise of rules under the powers delegated to it, made cmy clause (i) of sub-section (2) of section 56 of the Act which are inconsistent with this rule, surh rules sl:all prevail over this rule." This obviously is intended to indicate that if there any inconsistency as regards the power of cancellation between the Central Rules and the latter delegated State Rules, Central Rules. No\':, all these rulrs relating to the power of c&ncdlation which derive their authority from the rule making power given by the P10vincial and Central Acts must, according to the ordinary rules of construction be read so as to harmonise with the It follows powers of cancellation under ·the Act itsel( that r. (6) relating to resumption of allotments under the notification of July, 8, 1949, as it originally stood until February 6, 1950, must be read with s. 9-J\ of East Punjab Act XIV of 1947 as amended in H)4B, in so far as it relates to allotment. Similarly Central Rules of 1950, and the delegated State Rules of 1950 and 1951 must be read to harmonise with s. 12 of Central Act XXXI of 1950, in so far as they relate to allotments made urn.icr the notification of July 8, 1949· Reading these powers of cancellation under the that the Act and the Rules together, it will be found power of cancellation of such allotments is wide and varied and depends to a substantial extent on adminis trative orders and c'onsiderations. Rule 14 of Central Rules, 1950, underwent alterations in July, 1952, and February, 1953· These are subsequent to the date of cancellation of the allotment in the present c;o.se and have no direct bearing on the present case. Pausing here and summarising the pe:.ition as it obtained till July 22, 1952 (when further relevant rules were framed) as regards the rights under the (quasi permanent) allotment scheme introduced by notifi cation of July 8, 1949, may be stated thus. (References given as against each are to the relevant provisions of the notification of July 8, 1949). :S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS r. The allottee is entitled to right of use and ·occupation of the property until such time as the property remains yested (Clause 3 (I). the Custodian. and successors.

#2. The benefit of such right will enure to his heirs (Definition of 'allottee'.) 3. His enjoyrr.ent of the property is on the basis of paying land-revenue thereupon and cesses for the time being. Additional rent may be fixed thereupon If and when he docs so, the allottee by the Custodian. is bound to pay the same. (Clause 3(3).) Amar Singh v. Custodian, Evacuee Property, Punjab. Jagannadhadas ].

#4. He is entitled to quiet and undisturbed enjoy ment of the property during that period. (Clause 8.)

#5. He is entitled to make improvements on the land with the assent of the Custodian and is entitled to compensation in the manner provided in the Punjab Tenancy Act. (Clause 7.)

#6. He is entitled to exchange the whole or any part of the land for other evacuee land with the con sent of the Custodian. ::Clause 5.) i· He is entitled to lease the land for a period not exceeding three years without the permission of the Custodian and for longer period "·ith his consent. But he is not entitled to transfer his rights by way of sale, gift, will, mortgage or other private contract. (Clause 4(c).)

#8. His rights in the allotment are subject to the fairly extensive powers of cancellation under the Act and rules as then in force prior to July 22, 1952, on varied administrative considerations and actions such as the following Clause 6 and subsequent rules of 195r.) : - (a) That the allotment is contrary to the orders of the Punjab Gov"ernment or the instructions of the Financial Commissioner, Relief and Rehabilitation, or of the Custodian, Evacuee Property, Punjab ; (b) That the claims of other parties with respect to the land have been established or accepted by the Custodian or the Rehabilitation Authority ; ~ SUPREME COURT REPORTS 1957 Amar Singh v. Custodian, Evacuee Proper~y, Punjab. Jagannadhadas ]. ( c) That it is necessary or expedient to cancel or vary the terms of an allotment for the implementa- Y tion of resettlement schemes and/or rules framed by the State Government ; or for such distribution amongst displaced persons as appears to the Custodian to be equitable and proper ; ( d) That it is necessary or expedient to cancel or vary the terms of an allotment for the preservation, or the proper administration, or the management of such property or in the interests or proper rehabilitation of displaced persons. It is noteworthy include the liability of the allotment to be cancelled, if~ it is secured by false declaration or insufficient infor mation, and also if the allottee is convicted under the provisions of the Evacuee Property Administration Acts. the powers of cancellation (Clause 6(c) and (f).). • Taking all the above incidents together as to the position of a displaced land-holder to whom evacuee agricultural land has been allotted under the notifi cation of July 8, 1949, there can be no doubt that he is in a definitely better legal position than the allottee of other kinds of property under Central Act XXXI of 1950 and the Central Rules of 1950, who, as already shown, is more or licensee. less in the position of a 'f- But even so, it is still far short of what can be considered as being in itself 'property' either in the widest sense or in a limited sense. It is very strenuously urged that though this might appear to be so if one has regard only to the legislation and to the statutory rules up to July 22, 1952, the position of such an allottee emerges more definitely and clearly in the light of further legislation and subsequently amended rules. It is urged that this later legislation was in implementation of the original Press CommuniqueT dated February 7, 1948, which was understood to hold out the assurance of allotments conferring permanent property. On this contention the later legislation has also been brought In view of the to our notice. insistence with which this contention has been urged 1957 Amar Singh V, Custodian, Evacuee Propm;·, Punjab. Jagannadhadas ]. S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS and the importance of the question it is desirable to notice the same and to consider the effect thereof without deciding whether the later legislation and the Press Communique are relevant for the decision of the matters involved in this case. The earliest change in the pre-existing situation, as above noticed, was brought about by two notifications, S. R. 0. 1290 dated July 22, 1952, and S. R. 0. 351 dated February 13, 1953, as a result of which sub-r. (6) of r. 14 of the Central Rules of 1950 stood amended by the follows : substitution of a new sub-rule which is "(6) Notwithstanding anything contained in this rule, the Custodian of Evacuee Property in each of the States of Punjab and Patiala and East Punjab States Union shall not exercise the power of cancelling arry allotment of rural el'aruee property on a quasi-permanent basis, or varying the terms of any such allotment, except in the following circumstances : (i) where the allotment was made although the alluttee owned no agricultural bnd in Pakistan ; (ii) where the allottee has obtained .excess of the area to which he was entitled under the scheme of allotment of land prevailing at the time of allotment ; (iii) where the allotment is to be cancelled or varied- a ( a) in atcordance with an order made by competent authority under section 8 of the East Punjab Refugees (Registration of Land Claims) Act, 1948 ; (b) on account of the failure of the allottee to take possession of the allotted evacuee property within six months of the date of allotment ; (c) in consequence of a voluntary surrender of the allotted evacuee property, or a voluntary exchange with other available rural evacuee property or a mutual exchange \\ith such other available property ; (d) in accordance with any general or special order of the Central Government ; SUPREME COURT REPORTS 1957 Amar Singh V. Custodian. Er·acuee Propert_v. Punjab. Jaganno.1hadru J. Provided that where an allotment is cancelled or varied under clause (ii), the allottee shall be entitled retain such portion of the land to which he \rnuld scheme of quC>si have been entitled under permanent allotment of land : Prodded further that nothing in this sub-rule shall apply to any application for rcTision made under section 26 or section 27 of the Act, within the prescribed time, against an order passed bv a lower authority on or before 22nd July, 1052." therein. But whether This amendment has undoubtedly the effect of modif)· ing the po\\·er of resumption or cancellation vested in the Custodian authorities respect of quasi permancnt allottees by virtue of tl:c pre-existing rules limits as and to confine such power within narrow specified restrictions on this power of cancellation can be harmonised with the power to vary or cancel allotments vested in the Custodian under s. 12 of Central Act XXXI of 1950 is, a matter not without some difficulty. It may, however be assumed that if possible, the latest amendment of r. 14 of Central Rules, 1 CJ.'JO, by the insertion of the amended sub-r. ~6) therein will ha,·e to be harmonised with the main section by a proce s nf construction so as not to nullify the beneficient provisions specifically enact<!d in mandatory It i., noteworthy that the language of the new sub-r. (6) of r. 14 operates only as a restraint on the exercise of the power of cancellation vested in the Custodian and not as a negation of the power itself and it may, therefore, well be that there is no inconsistency. The choice of the language appears to be intentional. On the other hand it may be noticed also in this context that there have been some amend ments in 1953, 1954 and 1956 of s. 16 of Central Act XXXI of 1950 relating to return of the evacuee recognise property to the evacuee which continue to his right to return of the property and have made some alterations in the details of the procedure appli- . cable thereto. The continuance of the right of return may well imply the continued existence of the power to cancel the allotment. language. r957 Amar Singh V, CUstodian, Evacuee Property, Punjab. Jagannadhadas ]. S.C.R. SUPREME COURT RVPJRTS .,, . measme The next Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) _'fAct, 1954 (XLIV of 1954). By s. 12 of this Act it is important legislative \ provided as follows : "If the Central Government is of opinion that it is necessary to acquire any evacuee property for a public purpose, being a purpose connected with the relief and rehabilitation of displaced persons, including payment of compensation to such persons, the Central Government may at any time acquire such evacuee property by publishing in the Official Gazette a notifi cation to the effect that the Central Government has decided to acquire such evacuee property in pursuance of this section. (2) On the publication of a notification under sub- )- section ( r), the right, title and interest of any evacuee in the evacuee property specified in the notification shall, on and from the beginning of the date on which the notification is so published, be extinguished and the evacuee property shall vest absolutely Central Government free from all encumbrances. (3) ........................................................... .' It may be noticed that by virtue of Central Government notification No. S.R.0.697 dated March '24, 1955, under sub-s. ( 1) of this section, all evacuee property allotted . under the Punjab Government notification dated July 8, --Y1949, has been acquired by the Central Government excepting certain specified categories in respect of which It does not appear that the proceedings were pending. properties which are the subject matter of the present application have been acquired under this notification, probably because the dispute about is still pending. Section r 3 of the Act provides as follows : "There shall be paid to an evacuee compensation in respect of his property acquired under section accordance with such principles a.nd in such manner as may be agreed upon between the Governments of India r 2 4,-and Pakisthan." Section 14 makes provision for constituting a compensa tion pool for the purpose of payment of compensation and rehabilitation grants The to displaced persons. 1957 Amar Singh v, Custodian, Evacuee Property, Punjab. Jagannadhadas J. 828 SUPREME COURT REPORTS transfer the displaced person shall, so long as the Central Government, evacuee property acquired under s. 1 2 forms part of this compensation pool. Section 1 o is important and provides inter alia that where any immovable property has been allotted to a displaced person by the Custo dian under conditions published by the notification of the Government of Punjab Ko. 4.892-S dated July 8, 1949, and such property is acquired under the pro visions of tht; Act and forms part of the compensation the property pool, remains vested continue possession of such property on the same conditions on the property immediately before the date of which he held the acquisition. It is further provided that the Central the purpose of payment of com Government may pensation to such diJjJlaced j1erson, to him property on such terms and conditions as may prescribed. Section 40 provides for the rule-making power. Sub-section 1 (a) thereof enables the Central Government to make rules providing for the form and time within which, an manner in which and application for payment of compensation may be made and the particular; which it should contain. It may be noticed that "compensation" referred to in s. 10. in so far as it relates to a displaced person, obviously refers to the compensation for loss of his property in Pakistan and is not the recognition of a right to com pensation for deprivation of his interest, if any, in the allotted propcrtv by cancellation. Rules have been made by the Central Government called the Displaced Persons Compensation and Rehabilitation Rules, 1955 published by notification dated May 21, 1955. Rules 7 1 and 73 relate to verified claims which do not seem lands. "Verified claims" to refer to relate to urban immovable property as the definition thereof in the Displaced Persons (Claims) Act, 1050 (XLIVof 1950) shows. Rule 72 (1) relates to an allot tee of agricultural land having- no verified claim and is relevant. Rule 72(2) provides that if the Settlem~nt Officer is satisfied that the allotment is in accordance with the quasi-permanent scheme, he may pass an order transferring the land allotted to the allottee in agricultural 1957 Amar Singli v. Custodian, Evacuee Proper(y, Punjab. Jagannadhadas J. S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS the form specified It is admitted by the learned counsel for permanent ownership as compensation and shall also issue to him a sanad in Appendix XVII or XVIII, as the case may be, granting of the sanad which is him such rights. A scrutiny printed at page 70, Appendix VII, of the Displaced Persons Compensation and Rehabilitation Rules, 1955 issued by the Government of India, Ministry Rehabilitation , shows that it is only under this sanad that an allottee obtains permanent property in the land which originally belonged to the evacuee and which was allotted to him under the quasi-permanent allot ment scheme. This sanad is the culmination of the hopes and expectations of allottees held out under the Press Communique dated February 7, 1948, and confirms, if any, the view that until such s'tage been reached the allottee has no such interest in the evacuee lands which can by itself constitute "property" fundamental within the meaning of the protected rights. petitiOners that the petitioners in this case have not yet been able to obtain any sanad under these rules for the lands originally allotted to them and cancelled by the impugned orders of the Custodian and the Deputy Custodian-General. He urges, however, that having regard to the whole scheme and on the assumption that the or.ders of cancellation, which he challenges, are erroneous, they would in the ordinary course have obtained the sanad for the lands that and the right to relief under Art. 32 must be determined on that footing. Great stress is laid on the fact that under the scheme of Central Act XLIV of 1954, even if evacuee property is acquired under s. 12 thereof, the quasi-permanent allottee is entitled to continue in possession of the property under s. 1 o on the same conditions as before so long as the property remains vested in the Central Government. Stress is also laid on the fact that he can apply for transfer of the property to himself under r. 72(2) of the rules made under the Act in payment of compensation payable to him in lieu of his property left in West Punjab and that such application transfer is normally to be granted and a sanad issued 1957 Amar Sinth v. Custodian, Evacuee Property, Punjab. Jagann adhadas ]. SUPREME COURT REPORTS [ 1957} to him. In this context, learned counsel for the peti tioners relies on the well-known principle, viz., where a discretionary power is vested in a statutory authority, to act in certain circumstances for the benefit of certain person or class of persons (as in s. 1 o of Central Act XLIV of 1954 and r. 72(2) of the rules thereunder) the exercise of such power in favour of such a person, the requisite conditions exist, is obligatory and not optional, as laid down in the case ·in Julius v. Lord Bishop of O)fford ('). This principle, however, has no application in the present case. While it is true that under s. IO an allottee under the quasi-permanent allot ment scheme has the benefit of continuing in possession thereof and may obtain transfer on application, such benefits are subject to the.powers exercisable under s. 19 of the same Act and r. 102 of the rules framed there under. It may be noticed that in respect of the evacuee property which has been acquired under s. 12 and which forms part of the compensation pool under s. 14, the Central Government may appoint under s. 16 of the Act, for the management thereof, Managing Officers or Managing Corporations. the Act further provides as follows: Section 19 of "19. Powers property acquired under this Act. to vaiy or cancel allotment of any ( 1) Notwithstanding anything 'contained m 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 officer or managing corporation may cancel any allotment or amend the terms of any allotment under which any a evacuee property acquired under this Act is held or occupied by a person, whether commencement of this Act. allotment was granted before or " Rules !02 of the rules framed under the Act is as follows: "102. Cancdlation of allotments: officer or a managing corporation A managing may in respect of (1) (1830) 3 App. C:1·;. 21.i. S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS the property in the compensation pool entrusted -'f him or to it, cancel an allotment or vary the terms of any such allotment if the allottee- 1 57 9 Amar Singh Cmtcdia:; Evacur~ 0 f Prop"''· Punjab. (a) has sublet or parted with the possession the whole or any part of the property allotted Jagannadhadas J. him without the permission of a competent author ity, or 1 :.uch property for a (b) has used or if. using purpose other than that for which it was allotted to him without the permission of a competent author ity, 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. liable to be cancelled under s. Provided that no action shall be taken nnder this rule unless the allottee has been given a reasonable opportunity of being heard." These are in terms wide enough include quasi permanent allotments. This shows that notwithstand ing the previlege of the quasi-permanent allottee continue in possession under s. IO and the scope he has for obtaining a transfer under the same section and r. 72(2) of the rules made thereunder, his allotment 19 and itself r.102. Hence he has no such right to obtain a transfer the principle of which can be given effect to within Bishop of Oxford's case (1). He does not, therefore, appear to have an indefeasible right to obtain transfer land of which he is the quasi-permanent of the very allottee, if such land is acquired under s. r 2 of the Act. Thus the position,; of quasi-permanent allottee, whether before July 22, 1952, or after that date, is that his rights, notification of July 8, r 949, or under s. IO of Central -f Act XLIV of i954, are subject to powers of cancella tion exercisable by the appropriate authorities :iccordance with the changing requirements of the evacuee property law and its administration. Hence the quality of the interest of the displaced allottee in such as they are, either under (r) (1880) 5 App. Cas, 214. 8-99 s. c. I./59. \,,j SUPREME COURT REPORTS [ 1957 J 1957 Amar Singh v. Cus!oiian, El•acuee Proper:y, Punjab. Jaganna. Jhat/as J. evacuee agricultural land allotted to him appears to be substantially the same for the present purpose and the real question is whether constitutes "property" within the meaning of Arts.. 19, 31 ( 1) and 3 1 ( 2) of the Constitution. such interest The above interest so recognised, total thereof does not in any detailed consideration of the various incidents of a quasi-permanent allotment show clearly that the sum constitute even qualified ownership of the land allotted. At best it is analogous to what is called jus in re aliend according to the concept of Roman Law and may be feau>.res of some kind of interest in land. The basic that interest are that the ultimate ownership of the land is still recognised to be that of tile evacuee and the allotment itself is liable to resumption or canctllla tion with reference to the exigencies of the administra tion of evacuee law. The in its essential concept, provisional, though with a view to stabilisation and ultimate permanence. The provisional characteristic of this interest emerges from the fact that there have had to be a series of inter Dominion conferences to settle on governmental level the· problems arising out of evacuee property in either country. The stabilisation had to await the results of such conferences. Thus both with reference to the internal necessities of the administrative problems inherent the displaced persons on the evacuee lands with reference to various considerations and policies and the external problem of arriving at understandings between the two govern ments, these rights had to be so regulated from time thou.!\"h '1nd had an element of unstability, to time they were being prcgressively characteristics of stability. An interest in land owned by another in such a situation cannot be fitted any concept of 'property' in itself. The concept of a bundle of rights in agricultural land constituting by itself 'p,roperty' is the outcome of a stable and settled state of affairs relating to such bundle of rights. Historical jurisprudence shows that even the concept ·land was the of individual property in agricultural in the process of settling invested with S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS to observe outcome of stable and settled conditions of society. that the incidents of It is also relevant quasi-permanent allotment are entirelly statutory. Subjection to the power of cancellation by the Custo dian in whom the property is vested is one of such incidents and determines the quality thereof. There fore, having given our best consideration, we are to hold that the interest a of quasi-permanent unable allottee is word so as to attract the protection of fundamental rights. 'property' within the concept of Amar Singh 1957 •• Custodian, Evacuee Property, Punjab. Jagannadhadas J. to a. Property, the subject-matter '.:i r ( 2). Article 3 r ( 2) to fall within the scope of Art. 19(1) (f), must be capable of being "acquisition and disposal". The interest of the quasi permanent allottt:e arises by statutcry grant specified class of persons and is not capable of acquisi tion by the ordinary citizen in any of the normal modes. Nor is it capable of disposal by the allottee himself in the normal modes by way of sale, mortgage, gift or will. Neither is the interest of the quasi-perma nent allottee such as can be brought within the scope of Art. as recently amended, taken with Art. 3 r ( 2A) contemplates acquisition or as a result of requisitioning (and taking possession) to possession. transfer of the ownership or of the right It is true that the recent amendment came into opera tion on April 27, 1955, and the impugned orders of the Cwtodi;:m and Deputy Custodian-General are February 6, 1952, and May l, 1954. But in view of the word "deemed" in the amended Art. 3 I ( 2A) it appears likely that the amendment was intended to be retrospective. Even assuming that it is not so, "acquisition" in Art. words "taking possession" or 31 (2) prior inapt and to the amendment are wholly inapplicable to the bundle of rights of the nature constitute quasi-permanent above which detailed tenure and it is difficult to apply to it the protection under Art. 31 (2) either as it stood before the amend ment or after te amehndment. Learned counsel for the petitioners has urged that even if Arts. 19(1) (f) and 31{2) are not applicable, the SUPREME COURT REPORTS [ 1957 J 1957 A•w Singh . "· petitioners can invoke the protection of Art. 31(1) which says that no person shall be deprived of his property save by authority of law. He relies on the c;,;'j,:,"(j,· /,,~';' judgment of one of us reported in the State of West · Bengal v. Subodh Gopal Bose ('), where it was stated as ' .Jagaonadlwdas ]. follows : "The word 'property' as used in Article 31 ( 1) may have been intended to be understood in a wider sense and deprivation of any individual right out of a bundle of rights constituting concrete property may be deprivation of 'property' which would require the authority of law." This the authority is a view which was not shared by the other In any case members of the Court in that decision. it is clear that in order that Art. 3 I ( 1) may apply, it is not enough that there is 'deprivation' but it must also be deprivation without if law. in this case is not What has happened, however, deprivation of the property without the authority of law even assuming that the bundle of rights consti tuting such an interest in land is 'property'. It is the working out of the right of resumption or cancellation which was one of the incidents of the property. The cancellation by the Custodian authorities was under the very law which created those rights. Even if the exercise of that authority can be made out to be wrong, it is still not open to question having regard to It is not ss. 28 and 46 of Central Act XXXI of 1950. an illegal usurpation of jurisdiction by the authorities concerned so as to constitute negation of the authority of law. In the present case what has happened is that the quasi-permanent allotment of the petitioners has readjustments been cancelled in order consequent upoµ the order of the higher authority. to work out that under Learned counsel for the petitioners has strenuously allotment scheme the allottee is entitled to a right to possession within the limits of the relevant notification and that ·itself 'property'. That such right to possession may be so in a sense. But it does not affect the qusi-permanent (•) [•954] S.C R. 587,673, S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS it is property so as to attract question whether protection of fundamental rights under the Constitution. If the totality of the bundle of rights of the quasi permanent allottee in the evacuee land constituting an interest protection of fundamental rights, mere possession of the land by virtue of such interest is not on any higher footing. land, is not property entitled in such 1957 Amar Singh v. Custodian, Eva&1Jtt Property, Pu'!iab. Jagannadluidas ]. Learned counsel has also drawn our attention to a number of Acts and notifications of the Punjab Government to show that a quasi-permanent allottee has been treated as being in the same position as an owner of land itself for various purposes. Thus in r. 5 of the Land Revenue Rules under the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887 (Punjab Act XVII of 1887), a quasi-permanent allottee is classed with other land owners as being eligible for appointment as 2 aildars. Similarly by virtue of rules framed under the East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948 (East Punjab Act L of 1948), a quasi-permanent allottee is liable to pay the cost of consolidation if such consolidation comprises lands in such provisions, his occupation. These and other however, have no bearing on the question at before .us. After the close of the arguments before us a recent decision of the Punjab High Court reported in Suraj Parkash Kapur v. The State oj Punjab (1 ) has been brought to our notice and we have given our careful consideration to the same. That decision may be right on its merits, a matter about which we express no opinion. But, with respect, we are unable to agree with the view expressed therein that a quasi-permanent allottee has such an interest allotted to him as to constitute "property", if it is meant to that it is property which attracts convey the protection of fundamental rights under the Consti tution. thereby in the For all the above reasons we are unable to hold that fundamental right of the petitioners has (1) (1957) LIX P.L.R. 103. ~ S. C. lndiaJ59 1957 Amar Singh v. Custodian, Evacuu Property, Punjab. ]aga'(lnadhadas J. SUPREME COURT REPORTS [ 195 7 l infringed. This petition is accordingly dismissed but, in the circumstances, without costs. fundamental right In holding that quasi-permanent allotment does not to property under carry with it a the Constitution we arc not to be supposed as denying or weakening the scope of the rights of the allottce. These rights as recognised in the statutory rules are the essential basis of a important and constitute rehabilitation and settlement of displaced satisfactory land-holders. Until such time as these land-holders the lands, these rights are entitled to obtain sanads to zealous authorities according to administrative instructions binding on them, and of the courts by appropriate proceedings where there is usurpation of jurisdiction or abuse of exercise of statutory powers. the constituted rules and protection of Petition dismissed. GIPN-2S-99 S. C. India/59-6-7-61-1,000