Case Note & Summary
The dispute arose from the allotment of land to displaced persons from West Pakistan under the Evacuee Property Act, 1950. The appellant, Purshottam Lal Dhawan, was part of a group that had been allotted land in village Kharwan. The respondent, Dewan Chaman Lal, was aggrieved by a re-allotment that affected his original allotment. After several administrative decisions, the respondent filed a revision application to the Custodian General, which led to the cancellation of part of the appellant's allotment. The appellant contended that the revision application was barred by time and that the Custodian General lacked the authority to cancel the allotment. The court analyzed the relevant provisions of the Evacuee Property Act and the rules made thereunder, concluding that the revision application was not barred by time as the sixty-day rule was merely a guideline. Furthermore, the Custodian General had the authority to cancel the allotment made before July 22, 1952, under the second proviso to Rule 14(6). The court dismissed the appeal, affirming the decisions of the lower authorities and ruling that the Custodian General acted reasonably within his powers.
Headnote
A) Administrative Law - Revision Application - Time Bar - Evacuee Property Act, 1950, Section 27 - The court held that the revision application was not barred by time as the rule regarding the time limit was merely a guideline and not a strict limitation. The Custodian General acted within his discretion in entertaining the revision despite the appellant being impleaded after the sixty-day period had expired (Paras 1-1). B) Administrative Law - Powers of Custodian General - Cancellation of Allotment - Evacuee Property Act, 1950, Section 27 - The court held that the Custodian General had the power to cancel the allotment made on December 2, 1949, as the second proviso to Rule 14(6) allowed for such cancellation under specified circumstances. The cancellation was valid as the revision was filed within the prescribed time (Paras 1-1).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the revision application was barred by time and whether the Custodian General had the power to cancel the allotment.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, affirming the order of the Custodian General and ruling that the revision application was not barred by time and that the Custodian General had the authority to cancel the allotment.
Law Points
- Revision application
- powers of Custodian General
- Evacuee Property Act
- 1950
- cancellation of allotment
- limitation period
