Holding

The Chief Settlement Commissioner was duly empowered under s.24 of the Displaced Persons Act to cancel the excess allotment, and the land, being a package‑deal property vested in Punjab, could not be sold under that Act.

Summary

Pala Singh, a displaced person, was allotted land under the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954. In 1961 surplus lands were transferred to the Punjab Government under a package‑deal arrangement. In 1962 the Managing Officer allowed Singh to purchase excess land and he paid the price, but the Chief Settlement Commissioner cancelled the order, holding that the land now vested in Punjab and was outside the central compensation pool. The High Court upheld the cancellation, finding that the Commissioner was competent under s.24 of the 1954 Act to cancel excess allotments and that any sale must be governed by the Punjab Package Deal Properties (Disposal) Act, 1976 and its rules. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, confirming the lower courts' view and ordering costs.

Issues considered

Whether the Chief Settlement Commissioner is competent under s.24 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954 to cancel an allotment of excess land after a proprietary right has been conferred.
Whether land transferred to the Punjab Government under the 1961 package‑deal is outside the jurisdiction of the Displaced Persons Act and therefore cannot be sold by the Managing Officer.
Whether the petitioner can purchase the excess land under the Displaced Persons Act or must seek relief under the Punjab Package Deal Properties (Disposal) Act, 1976 and its rules.

Legislation cited

Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954s. 24, s. 33
Punjab Package Deal Properties (Disposal) Act, 1976
Punjab Package Deal Properties (Disposal) Rules, 1976s. Clause 8, s. Rule 4

Subjects

Displaced Persons ActPackage dealLand allotmentExcess landCancellation of allotmentJurisdictionPunjab StateMarket priceRule 4Section 24

Judgment

PALA SINGH (DECEASED) BY LRS.
A
v.
UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

JULY 22, 1987

B [A.P. SEN AND B.C. RAY, JJ.]

Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954:
s. 24--Allotment of excess land-Allottee acquiring proprietary
rights-Chief Settlement Commissioner-Whether competent to cancel

c
allotment by Managing Officer.,

Punjab Package Deal Properties (Disposal) Act, 19761 Punjab
-
Package Deal Properties (Disposal) Rules, 1976-Rule 4--Package land
in excess of entitlement cancelled-Purchase by allottee/successors-
in-lnterest-Permissibility of-Current market price-Determination
by Tehsildar (Sales).
D
All the surplus lands in the compensation pool of the Central
Government as well as the excess area in the occupation of allottees
were transferred under a package deal to the Punjab Government with
effect from April 1, 1961.

E In October 1961 the Managing Officer, Rehabilitation Depart-
ment detected that there was excess allotment of land to the appellant
in lieu of land left by him in Pakistan. By an order dated February 21,
1962 he allowed the petitioner to purchase the said excess area. The
petitioner deposited the required amount in the Treasury on March 6,
-
1962.
F
On reference, the Chief Settlement Commissioner held that the
excess land which was found in October 1961 could not be sold by the
Managing Officer under the Displaced Persons (Compensation and
Rehabilitation) Act, 1954 as under the package deal this land had been
transferred to the Punjab Government.
G
The petitioner then made an application under s. 33 of the said
Act to the Central Government which was dismissed. Thereupon he
moved a petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution before
the High Court, and contended that he is entitled to get the same land
as he had already deposited the price in accordance with the order of
H the Managing Officer, and that the said purchase could not be can-
624
~ ... PALA SINGH v. U.0.1.

celled on the plea that the land had already been transferred to the A
625

Punjab Government by the Central Government under the package
deal. The petition was opposed by the respondent, who contended that
the transfer of the land in dispute to the petitioner was void ab initio as
under the package deal it vested in the State Government. The High
Court held that the Chief Settlement Commissioner (Lands), had
" i jurisdiction to cancel the aUotment even after conferment of the B
proprietary right, that in view of the package deal the title to the land
~. bad already passed to the Punjab Government in 1961 and no authority
under the Displaced Persons Act could make auy order in regard to the
sale of the land to the appellant at a concessional rate, and that only the
Punjab Government could deal with the said land.

Dismissing the appeal by special leave,
c

HELD: 1. The Chief Settlement Commissioner had duly and
properly made the order. He was competent under s. 24 of the Dis-
placed Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954 to cancel
y ii' the allotment of land in excess of the area the petitioner was entitled to D
get under the provisions of the Act. [630F, 629E]

Smt. Ba/want Kaur v. Chief Settlement Commissioner (Lands),
Punjab, [1963] Punjab Law Reporter (Vol. 65) 1141at1187, approved.

---+ 2. The excess land allotted to the appellant was package deal
property vested in the State of Punjab. As such the same could not be
sold nor could it be allowed to be sold to the petitioner-appellant by the
E

Managing Officer under the provisions of the Displaced Persons Act.
' ";'. The order of the Managing Officer, was, therefore, wholly without
jurisdiction inasmuch as the said property was no longer in the compen-
sation pool of the Central Government. [629CD] F

Ram Chander v. State of Punjab, [1968] Current Law Journal
(Punjab & Haryana) 668 approved.

3. It Is for the Government of Punjab to consider and decide
Aether the legal representatives of the deceased appellant are entitled G
to purchase the said excess land under the provisions of the Punjab
Package Deal Properties (Disposal) Act, 1976. The Punjab Package
Deal Properties (Disposal) Rules, 1976 prescribe procedure as to how
the lands In excess of the entitlement, which have been cancelled, may
be transferred to the aUottees or their successors-in-interest. Rule 4 lays
down that the allottee or his legal representatives will not be entitled to H
626 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1987] 3 S.C.R.

A have the excess land \fhich was cancelled on the ground or fraud, conceal- -'fi_;
ment or mis-representation or material facts. It is also provided In
clause 8 or the said rules that the price or the land .that will be transfer-
red shall be the current market price to be determined by the Tehsildar
(Sales). [630G, 631AB]

B CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 10881. •
(N) of 1969.

From the Judgment and Order dated 14.8.1968 of the Punjab
and Haryana High Court in L.P .A. No. 95 of 1964.

A. Minocha for the Appeallant.
c
Ms. A. Subhashini, Mrs. S. Suri, C.V.S. Rao and P. Parmeshwaran
for the Respondents.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
D
B.C. RAY, J. This is an appeal by special leave against the Judg-'
... •
ment and Order made in L.P.A. No. 95 of 1964 dismissing the appeal
holding that the land in question having already vested in the Govern-
ment of Punjab under package deal, the authority under the Displaced
Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954 had no jurisdic-
E tion over lands in question.

Appellant, Pala Singh, a displaced person, was allotted 9 stan-
dard acres and 12-1/4 units of land in village Jhill, Tehsil and District
Patiala in lieu of his land left in Chack No. 204 in 1950. He got the ""
same quantity of land in village Alipur Arain on mutual exchange with
F an allottee of the said village. The appellant was not allotted any land
for the land left by him in village Santpura and Jaffapur in Tehsil
Phalia, District Gujarat. The area of Chack No. 204 R.B. was
described as a suburban area by the State Government. The appellant
applied for allotment in village Tripari Sayidan, a suburban of Patiala
City. After due verification from the records of the Rehabilitation
G Department at Jullundur, the petitioner being found entitled to ti\'e
suburban allotment to the tune of 10 standard acres and two units as
also to a rural allotment of 2 standard acres and 8 units was allotted 6
standard acres 12-3/4 units of land in Tripari Sayidan. Proprietary right
in respect of both these allotments, that is, at Tripari Sayidan and
village Alipur Arian were granted to him vide sanads dated 17th
H February, 1956.
'
1---
i

PALA SINGH v. U.0.1. [RAY, J.] 627

In October 1961, it was detected that there was excess allotment A
of 6 standard acres and 12-3/4 units in village Alipur Arian and accord-.
ingly the Managing Officer, Rehabilitation Department by his order .
. dated 21st February, 1962 allowed the petitioner to purchase the said
. excess area. Petitioner deposited the required amount in the Treasury
on March 6, 1962. On March 27, . 1962, i.e. 20 days thereafter the
·• petitioner was served with a notice by the respondent no. 3, Assistant B
Registrar-cum-Managing Officer asking him to appear before the res-
pondent no. 2, the Chief Settlement Commissioner, Civil Secretariat.
Jullundur to show cause why the order of the Managing Officer allow-
ing him to purchase the excess land shuld not be set aside; as it was a
case of double allotment. The respondent no. 2, the Chief Settlement
• _ Commissioner, after hearing the petitioner passed an order holding c
that the excess land which was found in October 1961 could not be sold
by the Managing Officer under the Displaced Persons (Compensation
and Rehabilitation) Act,' 1954, as under the package deal this land had
been transferred to the Punjab Government. It was for. the Punjab
Government to decide if the said land would be sold to the petitioner
at the reserve price or not. ·The reference was accordingly allowed and D
the order of the Managing Officer allowing the allottee to purchase the .
'.:>" said 6.12-3/4 standard acres in village Alipur Arian, Tehsil District
Patiala was set aside .. The petitioner then made an application under
Section 33 of the said Act to the respondent No. 1, the Central
Government against the said order. The. said application was dismissed
by the respondent no. 1. Against these orders the petitioner moved a E
petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India before
the High Court of Punjab and Haryana under Civil Writ Petition No.
1804 of 19p2 on the grounds inter alia that the petitioner is entitled to
> ~ get the same land ~he had already deposited the price of the allotted
land in accordance with the order of the Managing Officer. The said
purchase could not be cancelled on the plea that the land had already F
been transferred to Punjab Government by the Central Government
( under packag~~d~al. .

A return was filed on behalf of the respondents stating inter alia
that in lieu of land to the extent of 6.12-3/4 standard acres allotted to
him in village Tripari Sayidan, an area to the same extent was to be G
withdra\\n from his rural allotment in village Alipur Arian: This how-
ever was not done through oversight and the allottee was in possession
of the both lands in .villages Alipur Arian and Tripari Sayidan. This
resulted in double allotment to the petitioner. It was also submitted
therein that the Managing Officer wrongly allowed the petitioner to·
purchase the said land in village Alipur Arian in February 1962., The H
628 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1987] 3 S.C.R.

A order of the Managing Officer was without jurisdiction as by that time
property had gone out of the Compensation Pool and it vested in the
State Government. It was further averred thai the transfer of the land
in dispute to the petitioner was void ab initio as under the package
deal it vested in the State Government. Respondent no. 2 has rightly
B cancelled. the allotment of excess land to the petitioner.

The writ petition was dismissed by the learned Single Judge hold-
ing inter alia that the Chief Settlement Commissioner (Lands) had
jurisdiction to cancel the allotment even after the conferment of the
proprietary right referring to the decision in the case of Smt. Ba/want
Kaur v. Chief.Settlement Commissioner, [1968] P.L.R. 1141 (F.B.). It
C was further held that the package deal came about in April 1961
whereas the offer to purchase the excess land was made in February, ~
1962. i.e. at a tim~ when the land was no longer in the Central pool but
it vested in the State of Punjab. The Chief Settlement Commissioner
was justified in cancelling the permission to purchase given by the
D Managing Officer as the land had already been transferred to the State
of Punjab and the same ceased to vest in the Central Compensation
Pool.!· · ·

Aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 16th January, 1964
passed in C.W.P. No . .1804 of 1962 an appeal under clause X of the
E Letters Patent was preferred by the petitioner. This was registered as
L.P.A. No. 95 of 1964. On 14th August, 1968, the Division Bench of
Punjab High Court after hearing the parties held that ·there was no
denial by the appellant that in view of the package deal the title to the
land had already passed to the Punjab Government in 1961 and no
authority under the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilita-
tion) Act, 1954 could make any order in regard to the sale of land to
•·•. F the appellant at concessional rate. The title had passed to the Punjab
-... ..._,Government in 19?1 and after that it was only the Punjab Government
who could deal with that land. It was further held that there was no
. denial that the land in question was covered by the package deal. The
· only contention made by the appellant was that an appeal ~as filed in
G the Supreme Court from the judgment in the case of Ram Chander v.
State of Punjab, [1968] Current Law Journal (Punjab & Haryana) 668
wherein the validity of the package deal was upheld. It was held that if
the appeal succeeds in this Court then it would be up to the Chief
·--.._ " Settlement Commissioner to review his own orders in the wake of such
· decision of the Supreme Court in order to give relief to the appellant.
H The appeal was accordingly dismissed.
PALA SINGH v. U.0.1. [RAY. J.J 629

It is against this judgment and order this appeal by special leave A
has been filed.

It appears from the letters dated 3.6.1961, 5.3.1962 as well as
23.3.1963 issued from the office of Chief Settlement Commissioner,
Government of India that all surplus lands as well as excess area in
,. ) occupation of the allottees stood transferred to the Pun jab Govern· B
ment with effect from 1.4.1961 and the Punjab Government paid the
'r price of the lands at the rate of Rs.445 per standard acre to the Central
Government by half yearly instalments in 6 instalments within a period
of three years commencing from !st April, 1961. So these lands are

- package deal properties vested in the State of Punjab. It has been
rightly held in the Letters Patent Appeal confirming the order of the C
learned Single Judge in the writ petition that since the excess land
allotted to the appellant was package deal property the same cannot be
sold nor can it be allowed to be sold to the petitioner-appellant by the
Managing Officer under the provisions of Displaced Persons (Com-
pensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954. So the order of the Managing
Officer made in February, 1962 is wholly without jurisdiction inas· D
much as the said property was no longer in the compensation pool of
the Central Government but it was a package deal property vested in
the State of Punjab. It has also been rightly held that the Chief Settle·
ment Commissioner is competent under Section 24 of the Displaced
Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act 44 of 1954 to cancel
the allotment of land in excess of the area the petitioner is entitled to E
get under the provisions of the said Act. This legal position has been
settled by a decision of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case
of Ram Chander v. State of Punjab (supra) wherein it has been held:·

"In our opinion, the package deal has the effect of transfer-
ring the property from the Central Government to the Pun- F
jab State and the logical result which flows from it is that
the Settlement Authorities as delegates of the Central
Government could not pass·any orders under the Act."

It appears that the Civil Appeal No. 470 of 1969 which was filed
} ~ against the judgment and order passed in LPA No. 298 of 1966 was G
I
disposed of by this Court (to which b,lth of us were parties) on 29th
July, 1986 by recording the following order:-

"In view of the judgment in Civil Appeal Nos. 2125(N) of
1968 and 1832 of 1969, there is no reason to consider the
question of law raised by the State of Haryana in this H

.,- -- - ...
630 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1987] 3 S.C.R.

appeal. The appeal is accordingly disposed of without
A
expressing any opinion on the merits."

It also appears that this Court passed an order on 29th July, 1986
dismissing Civil Appeal Nos. 2125(N) of 1968 and 1832 of 1969 by
recording the following order:-
B
"There is no merit in these appeals. By the judgment, the
High Court has set aside the sales and directed re-auction
of the properties. We entirely agree with the reasoning and
conclusion reached by the High Court. The appeals are
accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs."
c It is therefore clear and evident that the judgment of the Punjab
High Court rendered in the case ')f Ram Chander v. State of Punjab &
Ors. (supra) insofar as it relates to the validity of the package deal, has
been upheld by this Court. So there is no merit in this contention made
on behalf of the appellant.
D
It has also been held by the Full Bench of the Punjab High Court
in the case of Smt. Ba/want Kaur v. Chief Settlement Commissioner
(Lands), Punjab, [1963] Punjab Law Reporter (Vol. 65) 1141 at 1187
that the Chief Settlement Commissioner was competent to cancel or
set aside the order of transfer even if the sanad was granted or the sale
E deed had been executed and on such order being made the sanad or
the sale deed will automatically fall with it.

On a conspectus of these decisions the point is now well settled
that .the respondent No. 2, the Chief Settlement Commissioner has
duly and properly made the impugned order of cancellation of the
F excess allotment made to the appellant.

It appears that the petitioner has already made an application to
the Government for allotment to them of the said excess land on
taking from them>the appropriate price. It has been further stated that
Pala Singh had died during the pendency of this appeal and he left his
G widow and four sons and daughters as his legal representatives. It is for i<
the Government of Punjab to consider and decide whether the legal
representatives of deceased appellant are entitled to purchase the said
excess land under the provisions of the Punjab Package Deal Proper-
ties (Disposal) Act, 1976 and the rules framed thereunder.

H It is relevant to mention in this connection that the Government
PALA SINGH v. U.0.1. [RAY, J.) 631

of Punjab amended the rules and the said amended rules have been A
titled as Punjab Package Deal Properties (Disposal) Rules, 1976.
These rules lay down elaborate procedure as to how the lands in excess
of the entitlement which have been cancelled may be transferred to the
allottees or their successors-in-interest. It also appears from Rule 4
that the allottee or his legal representatives will not be entitled to have
B
the excess land which was cancelled on the ground of fraud, conceal-
ment or mis-representation of material facts. ]t is also provided in
clause 8 of the said rules that the price of the land that will be transfer-
red shall be the current market price to be determined by the Tehsildar
(Sales).

For the reasons aforesaid there is no merit in the appeal and as C
such it is dismissed with costs, assessed at Rs.1,000.

P.S.S . Appeal dismissed.

...

' Y,