Case Note & Summary
The appellant, Bihari Lal Batra, was the son of a displaced person who owned agricultural property in Pakistan and moved to India after partition. The father died in 1952, and the appellant was allotted Khasra Nos. 880, 881 and 882 on quasi-permanent tenure on December 29, 1955, in lieu of his father's unsatisfied claim. A sanad was issued on December 31, 1955. When the appellant attempted to take possession, respondents 4 and 5, who were not displaced persons but claimed longstanding possession, challenged the allotment before the Assistant Settlement Commissioner, arguing that the land was within an urban area under Rule 2(h) of the Displaced Persons Compensation and Rehabilitation Rules, 1955 and therefore could not be validly allotted. The Assistant Settlement Commissioner cancelled the allotment, the Chief Settlement Commissioner rejected the revision, and the Punjab High Court dismissed the writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution. The High Court granted a certificate of fitness under Article 133, leading to the present appeal before the Supreme Court. The primary legal issues were whether the sanad conferred an indefeasible title that could not be displaced by cancellation of the allotment, and whether Rule 2(h) violated Article 14 of the Constitution. The appellant argued that once the sanad was granted, his title was indefeasible; and that Rule 2(h) discriminated between allotments made before and after May 21, 1955, when the Rules came into force. The respondents maintained that the land was urban area and the allotment was contrary to law. The Supreme Court rejected both contentions. On the title point, it followed its recent decision in Shri Mithoo Shahani v. Union of India, [1964] 7 S.C.R. 103, holding that when the order of allotment is set aside, the title obtained on the basis of the sanad also falls. On the constitutional challenge, the Court observed that Rule 2(h) was framed under Section 40 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954, within the rule-making power. The Rules came into force on May 21, 1955, and the appellant's allotment was made after that date. The proviso to Rule 2(h), which protected quasi-permanent allotments of rural agricultural lands already made in Punjab and PEPSU by applying the urban limits as on August 15, 1947, did not apply to the appellant's allotment because it was not "already made". The Court found the alleged discrimination self-contradictory: every law must have a beginning or time from which it operates, and a rule altering the law prospectively cannot be held invalid merely because it effects an alteration. The Court dismissed the appeal with costs, upholding the cancellation of the allotment and the constitutionality of Rule 2(h).
Headnote
A) Evacuee Property - Allotment of Urban Land - Cancellation of Quasi-Permanent Allotment - Displaced Persons Compensation and Rehabilitation Rules, 1955, Rule 2(h) - The disputed plots were within the extended municipal limits of Kharar, constituting an urban area under Rule 2(h); the allotment was made after the Rules came into force on May 21, 1955, and hence governed by the main definition, not the proviso; the allotment was contrary to law and cancellation by the Assistant Settlement Commissioner was upheld; Held that the allotment was rightly cancelled as the land was urban area on the date of allotment (Paras 1-4). B) Constitutional Law - Article 14 Discrimination - Prospective Operation of Rule - Constitution of India, Article 14; Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954, Section 40 - The appellant contended that Rule 2(h) violated Article 14 because it drew a dividing line at the date the rule came into force for determining validity of allotments; Court held that every law must have a beginning or time from which it operates, and a rule that operates prospectively cannot be held invalid merely because it alters previous law; the proviso applies only to allotments already made before May 21, 1955, while appellant's allotment was after that date; Held that Rule 2(h) is not unconstitutional and no discrimination arises from prospective operation (Paras 1-4). C) Property Law - Title under Sanad - Effect of Cancellation of Allotment - Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954 - The appellant argued that sanad granted on December 31, 1955 conferred indefeasible title despite subsequent cancellation; relying on Shri Mithoo Shahani v. Union of India, [1964] 7 S.C.R. 103, held that when the order of allotment is set aside, the title obtained on basis of sanad also falls; Held that appellant's submission rejected (Paras 1-4).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the title obtained by the appellant on the basis of the sanad dated December 31, 1955 was indefeasible and could not be displaced by setting aside the order of allotment; Whether Rule 2(h) of the Displaced Persons Compensation and Rehabilitation Rules, 1955 violates Article 14 of the Constitution
Final Decision
Supreme Court dismissed the appeal with costs. It held that the allotment was rightly cancelled because the land was within an urban area on the date of allotment, and Rule 2(h) was not unconstitutional. The title obtained under the sanad fell with the cancellation of the allotment.
Law Points
- Rule 2(h) defines urban area to include municipal limits
- allotments made after rules came into force must comply with main definition not proviso
- prospective operation of rule does not violate Article 14
- title based on sanad falls when order of allotment set aside
- every law must have a beginning or time from which it operates
