Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 2734 (RAJ)

Laxman Singh through L. Rs. v. State

2006-09-14

MOHAMMAD RAFIQ, S.N.JHA

body2006
Judgment S.N. Jha, CJ.-This special appeal is directed against the order of learned Single Judge dated 29.08.1995 in SBCWP No. 3006/1984 dismissing the writ petition of the appellant, Laxman Singh, since dead and represented by his legal representatives (hereinafter referred to as the appellant). He had filed the writ petition seeking direction on the respondents not to dispossess him from the land in dispute, and continue supply of water for irrigation of the land. 2. The case of the appellant is that on 07.03.1963 he was allotted 193 bighas land of Chak No. 26 M.D. comprising Khasra Nos. 184/43, 184/44, 184/50, 184/51, 184/52, 184/58, 184/59, 184/60 and 184/62 situate within tehsil Anoopgarh under the provisions of the Displaced Persons (Compensation & Rehabilitation) Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) read with Displaced Persons (Compensation & Rehabilitation) Rules, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules). The dispute arose when the Tehsildar, Revenue Anupgarh and the Tehsildar, Colonisation refused to enter his name in the revenue records. In September, 1981 he received notice under Section 22 of the Rajasthan Colonisation Act, 1954 and on 010.1981 an order was passed declaring him trespasser. He filed writ Petition No. 70/1982 which was disposed of alongwith 27 other similar petitions by a common order on 15.02.1984. The learned Chief Justice who heard the writ petitions observed that the question as to whether the property is evacuee property and the Sanad (under which allotment was made) was genuine cannot be decided in a proceeding under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Section 22 of the Rajasthan Colonisation Act, 1954 confers power on the authorised Collector to make enquiry as to whether the person has right or title to occupy the land or is to be regarded as trespasser. However, it was clarified, if the property is evacuee property, the Colonisation Act may not have application. Leaving the questions open, the petitions were disposed of with liberty to seek remedy in other forum in accordance with law. 3. The appellant thereafter filed application under Section 28 of the Act for transfer of proceeding from Board of Managing Officer (Rajasthan) to Chief Settlement Commissioner, New Delhi. On 26.04.1984 an interim order of stay was passed by the designated officer. 3. The appellant thereafter filed application under Section 28 of the Act for transfer of proceeding from Board of Managing Officer (Rajasthan) to Chief Settlement Commissioner, New Delhi. On 26.04.1984 an interim order of stay was passed by the designated officer. However, the application was dismissed finally on 06.04.1985 with an observation that the authorities of the Government of Rajasthan may dispose of the cases in accordance with the directions of the High Court of Rajasthan. In case the appellant has any grievance as allottee of evacuee property, he will be free to approach the concerned authorities in Rajasthan who have been delegated the powers under the Displaced Persons (Compensation & Rehabilitation) Act. 4. On 09.04.1985 the appellant filed application before the Rehabilitation-cum-Managing Officer, Meanwhile he had also approached this Court in the connected writ petition i.e. SBCWP No. 3006/1984 on or about 24.09.1984 making grievance that despite stay order passed by the designated officer on 26.04.1984 (Supra), he was sought to be evicted from the land and water supply was also sought to be stopped. The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition observing that the question regarding possession of the land is a disputed question which cannot be adjudicated in writ jurisdiction. The appellant has come to Division Bench in special appeal. 5. We have heard Shri Arvind Samdariya, Counsel for the appellant, Shri Rameshwar Dave, Dy. G.A., for the State and Shri R.K. Singhal, Counsel for the private respondents who claim to have got allotment of the very same land from the Colonisation Department. 6. Counsel for the appellant reiterated the appellants claim of allotment of evacuee property under the Displaced Persons (Compensation & Rehabilitation) Act read with the Rules. On behalf of the respondents, it was submitted that there is no record of allotment in favour of the appellant. The Sanad which is the basis of the appellants claim is forged. An FIR had been lodged with respect to the Sanad. Counsel submitted that the appellant filed the writ petition on the strength of the stay order of the Designated Officer dated 26.04.1984 but the petition stood dismissed on 06.04.1985. 7. Before commenting on the case of the appellant, it may be appropriate to briefly notice the scheme of the Displaced Persons (Compensation & Rehabilitation) Act. Counsel submitted that the appellant filed the writ petition on the strength of the stay order of the Designated Officer dated 26.04.1984 but the petition stood dismissed on 06.04.1985. 7. Before commenting on the case of the appellant, it may be appropriate to briefly notice the scheme of the Displaced Persons (Compensation & Rehabilitation) Act. Section 12 of the Act empowers the Central Government to acquire any evacuee property for the purpose of rehabilitation of displaced persons including payment of compensation to them. Section 14 provides for constitution of a compensation pool consisting of - (a) all evacuee property acquired under Section 12, including the sale proceeds of any such property and all profits and income accruing from such property; (b) such cash balances lying with the Custodian as may, by order of the Central Government, be transferred to the compensation pool; (c) such contributions, in any form whatsoever, as may be made to the compensation pool by the Central Government or any State Government; and (d) such other assets as may be prescribed. Section 16 deals with management of compensation pool. It lays down that the Central Government may take such measures as it considers necessary or expedient for the custody, management and disposal of the compensation pool in order that it may be effectively utilised in accordance with the provisions of the Act. It also empowers the Central Government to appoint officers, called managing officers, or constitute authority or corporation, called managing corporation, for the purpose of effective utilisation of the compensation pool in accordance with the Act. In terms of Section 20, subject to any Rules which may be made under the Act, the managing officer or the managing corporation may among other things transfer any property out of the compensation pool by sale or lease or allotment of such property to a displaced person or association of displace persons. The manner in which the sale, lease or allotment is to be made has been laid down in the Rules. We need not notice the rules except Rule 68 which provides that where any agricultural land is transferred to any person under these Rules, the transferee shall be granted a sanad in the form specified in Appendix XV. 8. The manner in which the sale, lease or allotment is to be made has been laid down in the Rules. We need not notice the rules except Rule 68 which provides that where any agricultural land is transferred to any person under these Rules, the transferee shall be granted a sanad in the form specified in Appendix XV. 8. It is relevant to mention here that the Sanad dated 07.03.1963 (Supra) under which the appellant claims to have been allotted the lands in question, has been issued in Appendix XV in the same format as provided in the rules. The Sanad -photo copy of which was enclosed as Annexure-1 to the writ petition, may be quoted as under: APPENDIX XV (Rule 68) SANAD NO. 4199 (Revised) "Whereas by the notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Rehabilitation No. S-III-5(14) 55-I & II dated 06.04.1955 issued under Section 12 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954 (44 of 1954) (hereinafter referred to as the said Act), the Central Government has acquired the evacuee property described in the Schedule to this Sanad (hereinafter referred to as the said property). And whereas the said property may be transferred to the said Sh. Laxman Singh S/o Sh. Phata Singh of Chak/village Sherpura Teh. Anoopgarh for the purpose of the compensation payable to him under the said Act. ............... ............... .................. The President is Hereby Pleased to transfer the right, title and interest acquired by the Central Government in the said property to ................... (hereinafter referred to as the transferee) subject to the following terms and conditions; ............... ............... .................. The Schedule above referred to Chak 26 M.D Teh. Anoopgarh Kh. No. 184/44 (25-0), 184/52 (25-0), 184/60 (25-0), 184/43 (15-0), 184/51 (25-0), 184/59 (25-0), 184/50 (25-0), 184/68 (6-0), 184/58 (22-0) Total 193-0 Bighas only. Executed this day of 07.03.1963 at Sriganganagar by Sh. S.P. Mathur (Settlement Officer) on behalf of the President. Sd/-(Illegible) (seal) 9. ............... .................. The Schedule above referred to Chak 26 M.D Teh. Anoopgarh Kh. No. 184/44 (25-0), 184/52 (25-0), 184/60 (25-0), 184/43 (15-0), 184/51 (25-0), 184/59 (25-0), 184/50 (25-0), 184/68 (6-0), 184/58 (22-0) Total 193-0 Bighas only. Executed this day of 07.03.1963 at Sriganganagar by Sh. S.P. Mathur (Settlement Officer) on behalf of the President. Sd/-(Illegible) (seal) 9. From a bare reading of the contents of the above Sanad, which as mentioned above is in the prescribed format as provided in the rules, it prima facie appears that the property which was subject matter of allotment, and in dispute in the present proceeding, was evacuee property within the meaning of Administration of Evacuee Property Act, 1950 and acquired by Central Government for the purpose connected with the relief and rehabilitation of displaced persons, including payment of compensation to them, as provided in Section 12 of the Act - as specifically mentioned in the preamble of the document. Being evacuee property, we have grave doubts, if it could be dealt with by the Colonisation Department of the Government of Rajasthan under the Rajasthan Colonisation Act under which the private respondents claim allotment. 10. However, we do not wish to weigh the respective case of the appellant vis-a-vis. the private respondents. The appellants admittedly on their own case were evicted in 1992. Though they claim the allotment since 1963 he did precious little to get his name mutated in the revenue records until 1981 when he was served with notice under Section 22 of the Rajasthan Colonisation Act. 11. In fairness to the respondents, we may further mention that except the Sanad which no doubt is a prima facie proof of the appellants claim, other details about the appellant being a displaced person -as to how he came to be treated as such - and the allotment of the land in question came to be made in his favour, are lacking. Nevertheless in view of the Sanad, the claim of the appellant cannot be rejected outright. It may be recalled that earlier, his writ petition being SBCWP No. 70/82 was not considered on merit and he was relegated to the alternative remedy. He filed application for transfer of proceeding under Section 28 of the Act from the Board of Managing Officers (Rajasthan) to Chief Settlement Commissioner, New Delhi which was rejected. It may be recalled that earlier, his writ petition being SBCWP No. 70/82 was not considered on merit and he was relegated to the alternative remedy. He filed application for transfer of proceeding under Section 28 of the Act from the Board of Managing Officers (Rajasthan) to Chief Settlement Commissioner, New Delhi which was rejected. Though in the rejection order it was stated that the appellant had failed to produce evidence in support of his claim, having regard to the scope of the application under Section 28 of the Act, the finding/observations cannot be construed to be finding on merit of the claim. In any view, the Designated Officer asked him to seek remedy before the authorities of the Government of Rajasthan. The appellant claims to have filed application on 09.04.1985 but fate of the application is not known. His second attempt to get relief from this Court in Writ Petition No. 3006/1984 again failed on the ground that the claim involved disputed questions of fact and the same cannot be adjudicated in writ jurisdiction. 12. It is clear that the claim of the appellant has never been considered by any authority/Court on merit so far. Though according to the respondents, sanad is forged document, the look of the document, manner in which it has been prepared does not suggest that, an FIR is said to have been lodged but the result of the criminal case is not known. It is to be mentioned here that in the earlier writ petition no such plea was taken on behalf of the State and it is doubtful if such a plea could be taken after 22 years in writ Petition No. 3006/1984 and more than four decades have passed since the Sanad came into existence; we do not think the claim of the appellant can be rejected on mere suspicion. We are inclined to think that the plea that Sanad is forged was taken because of non-availability of record but that by itself cannot be the ground to doubt the genuineness of the document. 13. It transpired in course of hearing that the Act i.e. Displaced Persons (Compensation & Rehabilitation) Act was repealed by the Displaced Persons Claims and Other Laws Repeal Act, 2005 (38 of 2005). A question arose as to whether in view of the repeal of the enactment itself , the claim of the appellant can be considered now. 13. It transpired in course of hearing that the Act i.e. Displaced Persons (Compensation & Rehabilitation) Act was repealed by the Displaced Persons Claims and Other Laws Repeal Act, 2005 (38 of 2005). A question arose as to whether in view of the repeal of the enactment itself , the claim of the appellant can be considered now. Section 6 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 provides the complete answer. Section 6 lays down that where any Central Act etc. is repealed, unless a different intention appears, repeal shall not, among other things -"affect any right, privilege, obligation or liability acquired, accrued or incurred under any enactment so repealed" and "any such investigation, legal proceeding or remedy may be instituted, continued or enforced, as if the repealing Act had not been passed". Thus, in view of the provisions of Section 6 of the General Clause Act, notwithstanding the repeal of the Displaced Persons (Compensation & Rehabilitation) Act, the claim of the appellant being a pending claim has to be considered and taken to its logical conclusion in accordance with law. 14. We are of the view in the facts and circumstances of the case that it would be in the ends of justice to direct the District Collector, Sriganganagar to consider the claim of the appellant in the light of the provisions of the Displaced Persons (Compensation & Rehabilitation) Act, and after giving the parties opportunity of hearing, issue appropriate order preferably within four months of receipt of a copy of this order. We order accordingly. 15. The appeal stands disposed of in the above terms.