JALANDHAR IMPROVEMENT TRUSTversusVINOD KUMAR AND ORS.

                         (2011) 9 S.C.R. 122


A              JALANDHAR IMPROVEMENT TRUST
                                  v.
                    VINOD KUMAR AND ORS.
                  (Civil Appeal No. 5461 of 2011)
                           JULY 15, 2011
B
    [DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA AND ANIL R. DAVE, JJ.]

         Punjab Public Premises Land (Eviction and Rent
    Recovery) Act, 1973- ss. 5 and 7 - Initiation of- Proprietary
C   rights - Land in question was part of the Development
    Scheme developed by the Punjab Government -
    Respondent claimed that they were Displaced persons from
    Pakistan and were in possession of the said land as an
    evacuee property - Order ofCivil Court that respondents not
D   be dispossessed from the property otherwise than in due
    course of law - Appellant initiated proceedings under the
    Public Premises Act for eviction of the respondents - The
    proceedings were stopped when the case file got lost at the
    stage of evidence - Respondents filed writ petition contending
E   that the proceedings under the Public Premises Act was
    without jurisdiction - In terms of the orders of High Court,
    matter was placed before the Settlement Commissioner who
    held that the case could not be decided in view of repeal of
    the Displaced Persons Act - Respondents filed another writ
F   petition for quashing the order of the Settlement
    Commissioner - High Court remanded back the matter to the         ...
    Settlement Commissioner once again to consider the claims
    of the respondents and also stayed their dispossession till the
    matter was decided by the Settlement Commissioner - On
G   appeal, held: Since the Evacuee Property Act has been
    repealed, there is no justification in the order passed by the
    High Court remanding back the matter to the Settlement
    Commissioner to consider the claim of the respondents once
    again inasmuch as the issue as to whether or not respondents ·
H                               122
          JALANDHAR IMPROVEMENT TRUST v. VINOD                 123
                         KUMAR
                                                                         I

       are authorised or unauthorised occupants of the land in Ai
       dispute and as to whether or not the respondents are er:ititled
       to alternative plots or rehabilitation are matters which can be
       adjudicated upon separately in accordance with law but not
       in the manner as suggested by the High Court - Even if
       respondents are entitled to rehabilitation under any law the B
 '•.
       same has to be established by due process of law - But they
       cannot claim any land within the acquired area/55.0 Acres of
       Development Scheme but in case an order is passed in their
       favour, they would be rehabilitated in alternative plot(s) -
       Therefore, they would have ·to prove their case before the c
       competent authority and not before the Settlement
       Commissioner - However, in order to comply with the
       directions of the Civil Court and also for eviction in accordance
       with law, proceeding initiated under the Public Premises
       Eviction Act should be continued till the same comes to a D
       logical end - Evacuee Property Act, 1950 - Displaced
       Persons (Compensation & Rehabilitation) Act, 1954.

            Respondents filed application for grant of proprietary
       rights in respect of land measuring 2-1/2 kanals in the
       55.0 Acres Development Scheme developed by the                E
       Punjab Government contending that they were displaced
       persons from Pakistan' and were in occupation of the
       said land since the year 1947 by way of evacuee
       property. The application was dismissed by the Naib
..     Tehsildar (S), M.O. on 3-8-1981 on the ground that the said   F
       area had already been acquired by the appellant-
       Improvement Trust Jalandhar and that it was not an
       evacuee property. The respondents then filed appeals
       before the Settlement Commissioner which vide its order
       dated 5-10-1981 remanded the matter to the Tehsildar (S)-     G
       cum-M.O., for decision afresh.
           Earlier, an Award had been passed on 05.01.1977 by
       the Land Acquisition Collector, Jalandhar Improvement
       Trust and in the said Award, it was stated that the State
                                                                     H
    124     SUPREME COURT REPORTS           (2011] 9 S.C.R.

A Government (Local Government) vide their notification
  dated the 10th July, 1975, issued under Section 42 of the
  Punjab Town Improvement Act, 1922, had accorded
  sanction to the Development Scheme for an area
  measuring approximately 55.0 acres. The Land
B Acquisition Collector vide its Award dated 05.01.1977 hald
  that the land occupied by the respondents had already
  been received by the Improvement Trust, Jalandhar in the
  package deal.

       In the meantime the predecessor-in-interest of the
C respondents Nos. 1 & 2 filed a civil suit seeking for
  injunction· restraining the appellant from dispossessing
  the predecessor-in-interest from the land illegally,
  unlawfully or by force. The Trial Court, namely, the Sub
  Judge passed an order in the said suit that the plaintiff
D would not be dispossessed from the suit property
  otherwise than in due course of law. The said order of
  the Trial Court was also upheld by the Additional District
  Judge. Subsequent to the aforesaid order, an application
  under Sections 5 and 7 of the Punjab Public Premises
E Land [Eviction and Rent Recovery] Act No. 31 of 1973
  was filed by the appellant initiating a proceeding for
  eviction of the respondents. The competent authority
  issued notice to the respondents and at the stage when
  the said proceeding was at the stage of evidence, the file
F of the case got lost, consequent upon which the
  proceeding was stopped.

      The respondents filed Writ Petition before the High
  Court contending inter alia that the aforesaid land is an
G evacuee property and therefore the aforesaid initiation of
  proceedings under Sections 5 and 7 of the Punjab Public
  Premises Land [Eviction and Rent Recovery] Act No. 31
  of 1973 was without jurisdiction. The High Court
  disposed of the said writ petition by holding that if the
H
   JALANDHAR IMPROVEMENT TRUST v. VINOD                125
                  KUMAR
Settlement Commissioner found that the claim of the           A
respondents was without any merit and they were not
entitled to any alternative sites/rehabilitation then they
would also have no action to claim to retain the sites
which were under their possession. Pursuant to the
aforesaid directions of the High Court the matter was         B
placed before the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Jalandhar
(Settlemen~ Commissioner) by the respondents for
allotment of property. The Sub Divisional Magistrate,
Jalandhar (Settlement Commissioner) passed order
dated 27-4-2007 holding that the case could not be            c
decided in view of repeal of Displaced Persons
(Compensation & Rehabilitation) Act, 1954 by the Ministry
of Law and Justice, Legislative Department, New Delhi.
Thereupon, the respondents filed a separate writ petition
for quashing the order dated 27-4-2007 passed by the          0
SettlementCommissioner/Sub Divisional Magistrate. The
High Court remanded back the matter to the Settlement
Commissioner once again to consider the claims of the
respondents and also. stayed their dispossession till the
matter was decided by the Settlement Commissioner. The        E
said order of the High Court was challenged in the
present appeal.

    Allowing the appeal, the Court
     HELD:1. There can be no dispute with regard to the       F
fact that the land in dispute is a part of the Award passed
on 05.01.1977 and the same belongs to the Punjab Town
Improvement/Government being a part of development
scheme. The respondents claimed to be in possession
of the said land as an evacuee property. If in case the       G
respondents were in possession of the said land as an
evacuee property and not as encroachers meaning
thereby holding right and title to hold and possess such
land, they were required to challenge the Award passed
on 05.01.1977. The said Award having not been                 H
    126      SUPREME COURT REPORTS             (2011) 9 S.C.R.


A   challenged by the respondents the same has become
    final and binding on all concerned. [Para 17] [132-E-G]

       2. The civil suit filed by the predecessor-in-interest of
  the respondents Nos. 1 & 2 was disposed of by the trial
  court, namely, the Sub Judge with a direction that the
8
  plaintiff would not be dispossessed from the suit
  property otherwise than in due course of law as
  respondents were in ·possession of the land, may be as
  encroachers. Consequent thereto, the appellant moved
C the competent authority for initiation of proceedings
  under the Punjab Public Premises Land (Eviction and
  Rent Recovery) Act, 1973 [the Eviction Act]. In the said
  proceedings all the issues could be urged as to whether
  or not the respondents were owners and had their rights
  over the disputed land and also as to whether or not
D appellant was owner of the land and as to whether or not
  the respondents were authorised occupants or
  unauthorised occupants of the land. It was also averred
  clearly in the writ petition and also in this appeal that the
  respondents were allotted four alternative plots in lieu of
E their occupation of the land which is part of the disputed
  land. The aforesaid fact although has been disputed by
  the respondents in their counter affidavit but no
  documentary evidence has been placed on record to
  indicate that the aforesaid land was not allotted by the
F Government to the respondents and that they had
                                                                   ..
  purchased the land by paying full consideration thereof
  from the competent authority. [Para 18] [132-H; 133-A·D]

       3. Whether or not the respondents are lawful owners
G of the land in question or they are mere encroachers and
                                                                   t
  liable to be evicted would be gone into and decided
  although in a summary manner in the proceedings which
  were initiated against them. [Para 19] [133-E]

      4. Since the Evacuee Property Act, 1950 has been
H repealed, there is no justification in the order passed by
   JALANDHAR IMPROVEMENT TRUST v. VINOD                127
                  KUMAR.
the High Court remanding back the matter to the               A
Settlement Commissioner to consider the claim of the
respondents once again inasmuch as the issue as to
whether or not respondents are authorised . or
unauthorised occupants of the land in dispute and as to
whether or not the respondents are entitled to alternative    B
plots or rehabilitation are matters which can be
adjudicated upon separately in accordance with law but
not in the manner as suggested by the High Court. Even
if respondents are entitled to rehabilitation under any law
the same has to be established by due process of law.         c
But they cannot claim any land within the acquired area/
55.0 Acres of Development Scheme but in case an order
is passed in their favour, they would be rehabilitated in
alternative plot(s). Therefore, they would have to prove
their case before the competent authority and not before      0
the Settlement Commissioner. However, in order to
comply with the directions of the Civil Court and also for
his eviction in accordance with law, proceeding has to
be initiated under the Public Premises Eviction Act,
which stands initiated, and therefore, the said proceeding    E
should be continued till the same would come to a logical
end. [Para 20] [133-F-H; 134-A-C]

    5. The order passed by the High Court is set aside
and it is held that the proceedings initiated against the
respondents under Sections 5 and 7 of the Eviction Act        F
would be allowed to be continued and the same shall be
brought to a logical end as expeditiously as possible.
[Para 21] [134-D]

    6. The land in question is a part of the Development      G
Plan and therefore the matter requires urgent
consideration. In any case the land in question being a
part of the Development Plan cannot be left to the
occupation of the respondents if they are held to be
encroachers by passing an interim order. Therefore, the       H
     128      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                [2011] 9 S.C.R.


A proceedings to adjudicate upon and decide as to
  whether or not respondents are authorised or
  unauthorised occupants of the land in dispute should be
  completed and brought to an end. As to whether or not
  the respondents are encroachers would also be decided
B in the said proceeding. All other claims regarding
  entitlement of alternative plot or rehabilitation and
  whether or not such land is already allotted as
  rehabilitation package could be raised by the
  respondents only after the proceeding initiated under the
c Eviction Act is finalised and also depending on its
  outcome. Six months time is granted to the competent
  authority to complete proceedings initiated under
  Sections 5 and 7 of the Eviction Act, so that, the matter
  is disposed of as expeditiously as possible as the same
D is pending for a very long time. [Paras 22, 23] [134-E-H;
  135-A]

        CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.
    5461 of 2011.

E       From the Judgment & Order dated 30.4.2009 of the High
    Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh in Civil Writ Petition
    No. 10203 of 2007.

      Samarth Sagar, Arun K. Sinha, Sumit Sinha for the
F Appellant.

        Dinesh Verma, Rajat Sharma, Dr. Vipin Gupta for the
    Respondent.

        The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
G
         DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA, J. 1. For the reasons
    stated in the application for condonation of delay, we are of the
    view that there is sufficient cause for such condonation.
    Accordingly, delay condoned.

H       2. Leave granted.
                      JALANDHAR IMPROVEMENT TRUST v. VINOD                      129
                        KUMAR [DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA, J.]
             .;

                       3. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order        A
                  dated 30.04.2009 passed by the High Court of Punjab &
                  Haryana at Chandigarh in Civil Writ Petition No. 10203 of 2007,
                  whereby the High Court disposed of the writ petition by
                  remanding back the matter to the Settlement Commissioner for
--;-n
        -,        considering the claims of the respondents while maintaining           B
                  status quo in the matter.
                       4. Brief facts leading to the filing of the present appeal are
                  that the land in dispute belongs to the State. It is averred by
 ~·               the respondents that they have occupied the land in dispute in
                  the year 1947, measuring 2-1/2 kanals in Khasra No. 16693/            c
                  6729 in the 55.0 Acres Development Scheme as they were
                  displaced persons from Pakistan. On the other hand the
                  appellant - Improvement Trust Jalandhar has stated that
                  respondents encroached the said land which belongs to the
                  Government.                                                           D

                        5. An Award was passed on 05.01.1977 by the Land
                  Acquisition Collector, Jalandhar Improvement Trust in Land
                  Acquisition No. 1 of 1975-76 and in the said Award, it was
                  stated that the State Government (Local Government) vide their        E
                  notification No. 8080-3Cl-75/21963 dated the 10th July, 1975,
                  issued under Section 42 of the Punjab Town Improvement Act,
                  1922, accorded sanction to the Development Scheme for an
                  area measuring approximately 55.0 acres on Police Lines
                  Road, behind Commissioner's Office, Jalandhar framed by the
                                                                                        F
                  Jalandhar Improvement Trust. The aforesaid Trust vide its
                  Memorandum No. JIT/3058 dated the 26th July, 1975, applied
                  for the acquisition of the non-evacuee and composite property
                  comprised in the Scheme under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.
                  It was also stated in the aforesaid award that according to the
        ;
            I
                  acquisition file prepared by the revenue staff of the Trust total     G
                  area of the scheme works out to be 598 Kanai 2 Marlas and
                  out of this area measuring 69 Kanals and 2 Marlas belongs to
                  the Improvement Trust, Jalandhar itself. The aforesaid Award
                  included the area in dispute which is the subject matter of the
                  present case.                                                         H
    130       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                [2011] 9 S.C.R.


A      6. The respondents, however, contended inter alia that they
  are in occupation of the said Ian~ by way of evacuee pr.opertY
  as they were being displaced persons from Pakistan. The said
  land was transferred to the Improvement Trust, Jalandhar for the
  execution of 55.0 Acres Development Scheme developed by
B the Punjab Government. The Land Acquisition Collector vide            ,.
  its Award dated 5th January, 1977 held that the land occupied
  by the respondents had already been received by the
  Improvement Trust, Jalandhar in the package deal.

       7. Respondents filed an application for grant of proprietary
C rights in respect of land measuring 2-1/2 kanals in Khasra No.
  16693/6729 in the 55.0 Acres Development Scheme. However,
  the application filed by the respondents for grant of proprietary
  rights was dismissed by the Naib Tehsildar (S), M.O. Jalandhar
  on 03.08.1981 on the ground that the aforesaid area had
D already been acquired by the Improvement Trust Jalandhar and
  that it was not an evacuee property.

        8. The respondents then filed appeals before the
  Settlement Commissioner, Punjab, Rehabilitation Department,
E Jalandhar against the order dated 03.08.1981 which were
  accepted by the Settlement Commissioner vide its order dated
  5.10.1981 and remanded the matter to the Tehsildar (S)-cum-
  M. O., Jalandhar for fresh decision, after hearing the
  respondents.
F
        9. In the meantime the predecessor-in-interest of the
  respondents Nos. 1 & 2 filed a civil suit seeking for injunction
  restraining the appellant herein from dispossessing the
  predecessor-in-interest from the land illegally, unlawfully or by
  force. The Trial Court, namely, the Sub Judge passed an order
G in the said suit that the plaintiff would not be dispossessed from
  the suit property otherwise than in due course of law. The said
  order of the Trial Court was also upheld by the Additional District
  Judge, Jalandhar vide his judgment dated 18.01.1985.
H         10. Subsequent to the aforesaid order, an application
         JALANDHAR IMPROVEMENT TRUST v. VINOD                       131
           KUMAR [DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA, J.]
      under Sections 5 and 7 of the Punjab Public Premises Land             A
      [Eviction and Rent Recovery] Act No. 31 of 1~73 [hereinafter
      referred to as the "Eviction Act"] was filed by the appellant
      initiating a proceeding for eviction of the respondents. The
      competent authority issued notice to the respondents and at the
      stage when the said proceeding was at the stage of evidence,          B
      the file of the case lost, consequent upon which the proceeding
      was stopped.

           11. In the meantime the respondents filed a Writ Petition
      before the Punjab and Haryana High Court contending inter alia        C
      that the aforesaid land is an evacuee property and therefore
      the aforesaid initiation of proceedings under Sections 5 and 7
      of the Punjab Public Premises Land [Eviction and Rent
      Recovery] Act No. 31 of 1973 is without jurisdiction.

           12. The appellant herein filed a counter affidavit in the said   D
      writ petition. The High Court by its order dated 12.05.2006
      disposed of the· said writ petition by holding that if the
      Settlement Commissioner finds that the claim of the
      respondents is without any merit and they are not entitled to
      any alternative sites/rehabilitation then they would also have no     E
      action to claim to retain the sites which are under their
      possession. Pursuant to the aforesaid directions of the High
      Court the matter was placed before the Sub Divisional
      Magistrate, Jalandhar by the respondents herein for allotment
      of property comprising in Khasra No. 16693/6729 situated in           F
      Bhisti Darwaja, Civil Lines, Jalandhar.

           13. The Sub Divisional Magistrate, Jalandhar passed an
      order dated 27.04.2007 holding that the case could not be
      decided in view of repeal of Displaced Persons (Compensation
..\   & Rehabilitation) Act, 1954 by the Ministry of Law and Justice,       G
      Legislative Department, New Delhi.

            14. Thereupon, the respondents herein filed a separate writ
      petition for quashing the order dated 27.04.2007 passed by the
      Settlement Commissioner which was registered as 10203 of              H
    132       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                [2011] 9 S.C.R.


A 2007. In the said writ petition the State of Punjab filed its
  counter affidavit in which it was averred that the respondents
  have already transferred their land which was being used as
  residential. With regard to the remaining land being used for
  Dairy, it was stated that they are not using the said land as the
B Dairy business has been shifted to Jamsher Tehsil Jalondha
  in the light of the decision of Municipal Corporation of Jalandhar
  wherein the respondents have been allotted four different plots
  bearing Nos. 139 to 142 vide letter dated 12.03.2008.

        15. The High Court passed an order dated 30.04.2009
C which is the impugned order herein and whereby the High Court
  remanded back. the matter to the Settlement Commissioner
  once again to consider the claims of the respondents and also
  stayed their dispossession till the matter is decided by the
  Settlement Commissioner.
D
        16. Being aggrieved by the said order the present appeal
  was filed on which we heard t~.qJea1ned counsel appearing for
  the parties. Counsel appearing tor the parties have taken us
  meticulously through the entire records.
E
        17. There can be no dispute with regard to the fact that
  the land in dispute is a part of the Award and the same belongs
  to the Punjab Town Improvement/Government being a part of
  development scheme. The respondents claimed to be in
  possession of the said land as an evacuee property. If in case
F the respondents were in possession of the said land as an
                                                                            •
  evacuee property and not as encroachers meaning thereby
  holding right and title to hold and possess such land, they were
  required to challenge the Award passed on 05.01.1977. The
  said Award having not been challenged by the respondents the
G same has become final and binding on all concerned.                   t

       18. The civil suit filed by the predecessor-in-interest of the
  respondents Nos. 1 & 2 was disposed of by the trial court,
  namely, the Sub Judge with a direction that the plaintiff would
H not be dispossessed from the suit property otherwise than in
                    JALANDHAR IMPROVEMENT TRUST v. VINOD                   133
                      KUMAR [DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA, J.]
         .f
               due course of law as respondents were in possession of the A
               land, may be as encroachers. Consequent thereto, the
               appellant has moved the competent authority for initiation of
               proceedings under the Punjab Public Premises Land (Eviction
               and Rent Recovery) Act, 1973. In the said proceedings all the
               issues could be urged as to whether or not the respondents are B
     ".<
               owners and have their rights over the disputed land and also
               as to whether or not appellant is owner of the land and as to
               whether or not the respondents are authorised occupants or
               unauthorised occupants of the land. It was also averred clearly
               in the writ petition and also in this appeal that the respondents c
               have been allotted four alternative plots in lieu of their
               occupation of the land which is part of the disputed land. The
               aforesaid fact although has been disputed by the respondents
'   •          in their counter affidavit but no documentary evidence has been
               placed on record to indicate that the aforesaid land was not D
               allotted by the Government to the respondents and that they had
               purchased the land by paying full consideration thereof from the
               competent authority.
                    19. Be that as it may, as to whether or not the respondents
               are lawful owners of the land in question or they are mere         E
               encroachers and liable to be evicted would be gone into and
               decided although in a summary manner in the proceedings
               which were initiated against them.
    ..                20. Since the Evacuee Property Act, 1950 has been           F
                repealed, we see no justification in the order dated 30.04.2009
                passed by the High Court remanding back the matter to the
                Settlement Commissioner to consider the claim of the
                respondents once again inasmuch as the issue as to whether
    .,,         or not respondents are authorised or unauthorised occupants       G
                of the land in dispute and as to whether or not the respondents
                are entitled to alternative plots or rehabilitation are matters
              · which can be adjudicated upon separately in accordance with
                law but not in the manner as suggested by the High Court. Even
                if respondents are entitled to rehabilitation under any law the
                                                                                  H
    134       SUPREME COURT REPORTS              [2011] 9 S.C.R.


A same has to be established by due process of law. But they
  cannot claim any land within the acquired area/55.0 Acres of
  Development Scheme but in case an order is passed in their
  favour, they would be rehabilitated in alternative plot(s).
  Therefore, they would have to prove their case before the
B competent authority and not before the Settlement
  Commissioner. However, in order to comply with the directions
  of the Civil Court and also for his eviction in accordance with
  law, proceeding has to be initiated under the Public Premises
  Eviction Act, which stands initiated, and therefore, the said
c proceeding should be continued till the same would come to a
  logical end.

       21. The respondents have not challenged the award and
  therefore the aforesaid Award has become final and binding.
  Therefore, we set aside the order passed by the High Court
D and hold that the proceedings initiated against the respondents
  under Sections 5 and 7 of the Eviction Act would be allowed
  to be continued and the same shall be brought to a logical end
  as expeditiously as possible.

E      22. The land in question is a part of the Development Plan
  and therefore the matter requires urgent consideration. In any
  case the land in question being a part of the Development Plan
  cannot be left to the occupation of the respondents if they are
  held to be encroachers by passing an interim order. Therefore,
F in our considered opinion the proceedings to adjudicate upon
  and decide as to whether or not respondents are authorised
  or unauthorised occupants of the land in dispute should be
  completed and brought to an end. As to whether or not the
  respondents are encroachers would also be decided in the said
G proceeding. All other claims regarding entitlement of
                                                                       l
  alternative plot or rehabilitation and whether or not such land
  is already allotted as rehabilitation package could be raised
  by the respondents only after the proceeding initiated under the ·
  Eviction Act is finalised and also depending on its outcome.
H         23. Six months time is granted to the competent authority
            JALANDHAR IMPROVEMENT TRUST v. VINOD                    135
 .;."         KUMAR [DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA, J.]
        to complete proceedings initiated under Sections 5 and 7 of        A
        the Eviction Act, so that, the matter is disposed of as
        expeditiously as possible as the same is pending for a very long
        time.
•<!
  .         24. Therefore, the present appeal is allowed and the order     8
        passed by the High Court accordingly stands quashed. We
        leave the parties to bear their own costs.

        B.B.B ..                                      Appeal allowed.