Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 790 (MP)

Shivraj Singh v. State of M. P.

2024-12-17

MILIND RAMESH PHADKE

body2024
ORDER [Regard being had to the similitude of the controversy, these nine petitions were heard analogously and decided by this common order. For factual convenience, facts as narrated in W.P. No.4374 of 2012 are taken into consideration.] 1. The instant petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is preferred against the order dated 25.5.2012 passed by the respondent No.1 in case No.F-22-12/2004/28, whereby the order dated 8.10.2009 by which the present petitioners were allotted lands bearing survey Nos.58 and 343 admeasuring about 6.511 hectares and 0.533 hectares respectively situated in village Mungwara, Tahsil Gulabganj District Vidisha under the provisions of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954, was set aside holding that the said order was passed after the Act of 1954 itself was repealed by the Govt. of India in the year 2005, therefore, the authority had no jurisdiction to pass such an order. 2. For convenience, the proceedings in pursuance to which the above writ petitions had been filed are mentioned in the reference which are as under: S. No. W.P. Nos. Reference Case Nos. 1 4374/2012 F-22-12/2004/28 2 4627/2012 F-22-12/2004/28 3 4628/2012 F-22-12/2004/28 4 5414/2012 F-22-395/2002/28 5 5416/2012 F-22-393/2002/28 6 5418/2012 F-22-395/2002/28 7 5841/2012 F-22-395/2002/28 8 5854/2012 F-22-393/2002/28 9 5855/2012 F-22-393/2002/28 3. Short facts in nutshell are that forefathers of the petitioners were in possession of the disputed property since last 50 years and on 23.9.2009 respondent No.1 issued a letter informing them that since they are in possession of the said land/evacuee property since last 50 years, which is also affirmed by the report of the Collector, Vidisha, they can be allotted the said land and in pursuance thereof they were directed to deposit requisite the then value of the disputed property, which was Rs.8552/-, payable to the rehabilitation department by way of challan, so that the proceedings to convert the possession of their disputed property into the valid title can be initiated. 4. In compliance to the said letter dated 23.9.2009 the requisite amount of Rs.8552/- was deposited under the heads of the rehabilitation department by the petitioners on 26.9.2009. 4. In compliance to the said letter dated 23.9.2009 the requisite amount of Rs.8552/- was deposited under the heads of the rehabilitation department by the petitioners on 26.9.2009. On 8.10.2009 respondent No.1 issued a correspondence and in consultation with the internal correspondence in reference to letter No.Q/Jagir/06 dated 24.2.2006, whereby it was informed to the petitioners that they are under the possession of a disputed/evacuee property since last 50 years and the market rate of the property was about Rs.482/- per acre and thus, they were directed to deposit the amount of Rs.8552/-. In the said correspondence, it was further admitted that the management and execution of Evacuee Property are under the the provisions of the Central Acts and since there is no displaced person to claim the evacuee property, therefore, the policy of the State Govt., which existed on the said date and provided that where there is the possession of the evacuee property over 50 years of any person, the said person can be allotted the said land and as the petitioners are in possession of the evacuee property over 50 years, therefore, the Collector, Vidisha may initiate proceedings to execute the conveyance deed in favour of the petitioners, so that the petitioners can become the valid title holder of the property. On the basis of the said correspondence, the Collector executed the conveyance deed and in pursuance thereof the petitioners became the title holder of the land in question. 5. To the surprise of the petitioners vide impugned order dated 25.5.2012 they got knowledge that respondent No.1 has cancelled the earlier order dated 08.10.2009 on the ground that the said order was passed after the repeal of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954 in the year 2005 and, therefore, order dated 8.10.2009 was beyond jurisdiction and competence of the said authority. Consequently, the respondent No.2 was also directed to initiate proceedings to dispossess the petitioners from the evacuee property. Being aggrieved by the said order as well as the directions, the present petition has been filed. 6. Consequently, the respondent No.2 was also directed to initiate proceedings to dispossess the petitioners from the evacuee property. Being aggrieved by the said order as well as the directions, the present petition has been filed. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the impugned order dated 25.5.2012, whereby the earlier order dated 8.10.2009 was cancelled, was passed after lapse of more than three years and without giving any opportunity of hearing to the petitioners, therefore, the said order is bad in law and as the principles of natural justice has not been followed by the respondents while passing the impugned order, the said order deserves to be quashed. It was further argued that the respondent No.1 himself has admitted the possession of the petitioners on the evacuee agricultural land over 50 years and has also admitted that there was no one as a displaced person to claim the said property, it was rightly directed the property to be allotted to the petitioners and once while exercising the legal powers land has been allotted to the petitioners under the Act of 1954, cancellation of the said order without giving any opportunity of hearing to the petitioners is per se illegal. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioners while placing reliance on the Displaced Persons Claims and Other Laws Repeal Act, 2005, argued that vide section 2 of the aforesaid Act, the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954 was repealed but in the said Repeal Act there was no saving clause as to what would happen to the proceedings, which had been initiated under the Repealed Act, which in the present matter were initiated in the year 2004 as would be evident from the very number of the case i.e. F-22-12/2004/28, a clarification dated 17.11.2016 was issued by the Ministry of Home Affairs, Govt. of India (FFR Division) and in the light of judgment passed by the apex Court in the matter of Union of India v. International Sindhi Panchayats and others passed in Civil Appeal No.6079/2010 dated 28.4.2014 requested to all the State Governments/Union Territories to continue to decide the pending cases and proceedings which were pending on the date of the repeal of the said Act, and deal with the residuary works of administration, management and disposal of acquired evacuee properties (forming part of the Compensation Pool) transferred to the State Governments/Union Territories, under the un-repealed Displaced Persons (Compensation & Rehabilitation) Act, 1954 and other related Acts as per the provisions of Sub section 6 of the General Clauses Act, 1897. On the basis of aforesaid arguments, it was prayed that the present petition deserves to be allowed and the order impugned dated 25.5.2012 and directions in pursuance thereof are required to be quashed. 8. While referring to a decision rendered in the matter of Smt. Indrakala Agarwal v. State of M.P. reported in AIR Online 2021 MP 257; it was argued that the powers of review exercised by respondent No.1 while cancelling/setting aside the order dated 8.10.2009 in absence of any provision in the Act of 1954 granting an express power of review, the review of the order dated 8.10.2009 could not have been made and the said order was ultra virus illegal and without jurisdiction. It was further argued that the Act of 1954 only provides for appeal and revisions but there is no power of review under the Act of 1954, thus, on this count also the impugned order suffers from illegality and perversity. 9. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State had supported the impugned order and had vehemently contended that since the Act of 1954 under which the lands were allotted to the petitioner was repealed in the year 2005 itself, its allotment in the year 2009 i.e. vide order dated 8.10.2009 was per se illegal and without jurisdiction and the authorities granting such permission had exercised the jurisdiction, which were not vested in them in a very arbitrary and illegal manner. Thus, it was submitted that the present petition has no sum and substance, therefore, it be dismissed. 10. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 11. Thus, it was submitted that the present petition has no sum and substance, therefore, it be dismissed. 10. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 11. In the matter of Union of India v. International Sindhi Panchayats and others (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court vide its order dated 28.4.2014, which was upheld in the order dated 7.1.2016 passed in review petition No.3377/2015 inter alia ruled that:- ".....It is declared that the provisions of section 6 of 10 the General Clauses Act are applicable to the Displaced Persons Claims and other Laws Repeal Act, 2005 (for short 'Repeal Act, 2005') and that the respondent Nos.6 and 8 herein shall continue to decide the cases and proceedings pending on the date of the said Repeal Act, 2005 and implement the decision in the said cases under the un-repealed Displaced Persons Compensation & Rehabilitation Act, 1954 and other related Acts........" 12. Considering the above judgement passed by the Hon'ble apex Court on the issue, the Ministry of Home Affairs, Govt. of India (FFR Division), in consultation with Ministry of Law & Justice decided to request all the State Governments/UTs to continue to decide the pending cases and proceedings which were pending on the date of the repeal of the said Acts, and deal with the residuary works of administration, management and disposal of acquired evacuee properties (forming part of Compensation Pool) transferred to the State Governments/UTs, under the un-repealed Displaced Persons (Compensation & Rehabilitation) Act, 1954 and other related Acts as per the provisions of section 6 of the General Clauses Act, 1897. 13. The aforesaid decision of the Ministry was communicated to all the Chief Secretaries of State of administrator/UTs vide letter dated 17.11.2016, wherein it was further clarified that with regard to revival of the authorities, no fresh delegation of powers is required as the same revives automatically in the light of apex Court's order except in cases where appointment/delegation of powers or approval of Central Government is required due to change of name, designation etc. in respect of authorities notified earlier. in respect of authorities notified earlier. Thus, when the Apex Court in categorical terms had directed to continue the proceedings, which were pending at the time of repeal of the Act of 1954 and the same was accepted by the Union of India and was clarified vide its letter dated 17.11.2016, then there is no iota of doubt in the mind of this Court that if the proceedings were pending at the time of repeal of the Act of 1954 in the year 2005, then the said proceedings would continue in the light of above legal fiction. 14. Thus, the only question, which is now left is that whether the proceedings for allotment of the land in favour of the petitioners were initiated prior to repeal of the Act w.e.f. 5.9.2005. Though, there is no material available on record placed either by the State or the petitioner as to the date of pendency of the proceedings but from the impugned order as well as other documents appended to the petition, it could be gathered that the proceedings in the present case were initiated in the year 2004, as the case number, which has been mentioned in the reference is 'F-22-12/2004/28' and this fact has not been controverted in specific terms by the State Government, thus, once it is found that the proceedings for allotment of the land under the Act of 1954 were already initiated in the year 2004, then as per legal fiction created by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the matter of Union of India v. International Sindhi Panchayats and others (supra) as well as the clarification letter dated 17.11.2016 issued by Ministry of Home Affairs, Govt. of India (FFR Division), it can be very well said that the order dated 8.10.2009 was in continuance to the proceedings, thus was very well under the Act of 1954 and was passed by the authority competent therein. 15. of India (FFR Division), it can be very well said that the order dated 8.10.2009 was in continuance to the proceedings, thus was very well under the Act of 1954 and was passed by the authority competent therein. 15. So far as the contention raised by the counsel for the petitioner with regard to respondent No.1 having no authority to review its own order and cancel it is concerned, section 22, 23 and 24 of the Act of 1954 provides for appeals and revisions but there is no express provision for review except for power under section 19 of the Act of 1954, which is with regard to varing or cancelling the lease or allotment of the property acquired under the Act but the said power as per sub-Section (2) can only be exercised after giving reasonable opportunity of showing cause against his eviction from such property and as it is apparent from the very order (Annexure P/1) that no opportunity of hearing has been granted to the petitioners and the principles of natural justice has not been followed, therefore, the impugned order is not sustainable. 16. Thus, this Court deems it fit to set aside the impugned order dated 25.5.2012, whereby the order dated 8.10.2009 was directed to be canceled. The petition is hereby allowed to the above extent. 17. Since the facts of other connected cases are also similar and similar controversy is involved in those cases, the impugned orders in those case, which are mentioned herein below are also set aside. S. No. W.P. Nos. Reference Case Nos. Date of Impugned order Date of the order which was directed to be canceled by the impugned order 1 4627/2012 F-22-12/2004/28 25.05.2012 25/09/06 2 4628/2012 F-22-12/2004/28 25.05.2012 28/09/06 3 5414/2012 F-22-395/2002/28 17.05.2012 07/12/07 4 5416/2012 F-22-393/2002/28 17.05.2012 06/11/09 5 5418/2012 F-22-395/2002/28 17.05.2012 17/05/07 6 5841/2012 F-22-395/2002/28 17.05.2012 31/05/08 7 5854/2012 F-22-393/2002/28 25.05.2012 28/05/07 8 5855/2012 F-22-393/2002/28 17.05.2012 June, 2008 18. As a natural corollary, the lands in question be recorded in the Revenue Records in the name of present petitioners. Certified copy as per rules.