Case Note & Summary
The dispute concerned agricultural land of about 60 acres at Nizamabad in the former Hyderabad State, later Andhra Pradesh. The five private respondents were displaced persons to whom the Deputy Custodian of Nizamabad District allotted 44 acres on September 7, 1950, and the remaining 16 acres on July 21, 1951, by way of lease, with no condition of personal cultivation. While this lease subsisted, the Government of India issued a Press Note on November 13, 1953, inviting verified claimants under the Displaced Persons (Claims) Act, 1950 to apply for allotment of evacuee agricultural land towards settlement of their claims. The appellants, displaced persons with verified claims, applied and were allotted the same disputed land on May 4, 1954, on quasi-permanent tenure, even though it was under the respondents' lease. The revenue authorities then dispossessed the respondents and put the appellants in possession. The respondents' representation to the Regional Settlement Commissioner was rejected on July 10, 1954. The Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954 came into force on October 9, 1954; the properties were acquired by notification dated January 18, 1955 under Section 12. On January 12, 1956, the Regional Settlement Commissioner issued sanads in favour of appellants 1 to 4 under Section 20. The Deputy Chief Settlement Commissioner, on August 22, 1958, set aside the rejection order and remanded for inquiry. After a Collector's report dated June 13, 1959 found personal cultivation by the respondents, the Deputy Chief Settlement Commissioner referred the case to the Central Government under Section 33. The Deputy Secretary in the Ministry of Rehabilitation heard all parties and found that the order of July 10, 1954 was wrong and that there was no justification for terminating the respondents' lease; he directed revocation of the sanads and restoration of possession to the respondents. The appellants challenged this order by special leave. Three contentions were raised: that Section 33 did not permit revision of the July 10, 1954 order; that the sanads conferred irrevocable title; and that the Deputy Secretary lacked material to find error. The Supreme Court held that the Central Government's power under Section 33 was wide and covered the correction of errors in rehabilitation grants, especially since the entire question of restoration was referred and both parties were heard. The Court also held that a sanad could only be issued on a valid allotment order; once the allotment was set aside, the sanad could not survive in the absence of express provision. The Court further indicated that the factual correctness of the Central Government's finding was not open to re-examination under Article 136 unless the order was illegal or invalid. Accordingly, the Court upheld the Central Government's order and dismissed the appeal, leaving the respondents entitled to possession.
Headnote
A) Property Law - Evacuee Property and Rehabilitation - Revision Power Under Section 33 - Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954, Section 33 - The Central Government's suo motu revision power could correct errors in orders relating to rehabilitation grants, including the Regional Settlement Commissioner's order rejecting restoration of land to original lessees; the Deputy Chief Settlement Commissioner had referred the entire question of restoration to the Central Government after hearing both parties. Held that the Central Government's order was within Section 33 and not confined to the Regional Settlement Commissioner's initial order. (Paras Not mentioned) B) Property Law - Sanad and Allotment - Validity of Sanad Dependent on Underlying Allotment - Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954, Sections 20, 33 - A sanad granted under Section 20 could be lawfully issued only on the basis of a valid order of allotment; when the allotment was set aside, the sanad could not survive unless an express provision preserved it. Held that the title obtained on the basis of the allotment fell with the revocation of the allotment; Partumal v. Managing Officer distinguished and Balwant Kaur v. Chief Settlement Commissioner approved. (Paras Not mentioned) C) Constitutional Law - Supreme Court's Jurisdiction Under Article 136 - Scope of Interference with Factual Findings - Constitution of India, Article 136 - In an appeal by special leave, the Supreme Court would not examine the correctness of the Central Government's factual conclusion that the order dated July 10, 1954 was erroneous, unless the order was illegal or invalid. Held that the challenge based on lack of materials could not be entertained. (Paras Not mentioned)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Central Government had power under Section 33 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954 to revise the order of the Regional Settlement Commissioner dated July 10, 1954; whether sanads issued under Section 20 could survive after the allotment was set aside; whether the Deputy Secretary had material to hold the order erroneous
Final Decision
The Supreme Court upheld the Central Government's order passed under Section 33 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954, revoking the sanads granted to the appellants and restoring possession of the disputed land to the respondents. The appeal was dismissed.
Law Points
- Revision power under Section 33 includes correction of errors in rehabilitation grants
- sanad cannot survive if underlying allotment is set aside
- title obtained on the basis of a valid allotment falls with revocation of allotment
- factual findings of Central Government under Section 33 not open to challenge under Article 136 unless illegal or invalid
