SMT. PRITAM KAURversusDY. SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS AND ORS.

A                               SMT. PRITAM KAUR
                                            v.
       DY.' SECRETARY, MINiSTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS AND ORS.

                                 DECEMBER 5, 1996

B             (K. RAMASWAMY AND K. VENKATASWAMI, JJ.]

          Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation)Act, 1954: Sec-
    tions 2(b )(e) and 4.

C         Displaced persons-Claim for rehabilitation compensatiott-Require-
    ments of-Respondents and their father residents of West Pakistatt-Respon-
    dents had migrated to India in 1947-Father of respondents died in Pakistan
    in 1955-Respondents filed claim for rehabilitation compensation on
    December 19, 1955-Competent authorities held that they are entitled to
    compensation-<:onsequently land in possession of appellant allotted to
D   them-Appellant unsuccessfully challenged the proceedings-Appeal preferred
    before Supreme Court-Held the respondents as legal representatives suc-
    ceeded by intestate-succession to the estate left by their father in Pakis-
    tan-They are displaced persons they did not leave behind them, while
    migrating to India, any immovable property of their own in West Pakis-
E   tan-They did not file any claims on or before May 31, 1953, as enjoined in           •
    Section 2(e)-Nor were their claims verified before June 30, 1955 as enjoined
    in Section 4(1)-Therefore, the findings recorded by the authorities that the
    properties are the joint family properties in which the respondent Nos. 4 and
    5 had a share and, therefore, they are entitled to file their claims, are ex facie
F   incorrect-The application filed by respondents in December 1955 was clearly
    barred and was not warranted-The entertainment of application and dis-
    posal by the authorities, though at the instance of the revisional authorities,
    was not in accordance with law.

            CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 429 of                       '·
G   1986.

         From the Judgment and Order dated 1.8.85 of the Delhi High Court
    in C.W.P. No. 1377 of 1985.

        S.K. Bagga, Seeraj Bagga, Ms. Tanuj Bagga and S. Bagga for the
H   Appellant
                                   570
          PRITAMKAURv. DY.SECY.,MIN.OFHOMEAFFAIRS                          571

      Y.P. Mahajan for the Respondent Nos. 1-3.                                   A
      Ashok Kumar Sharma (NP) for the Respondent No. 4-5.

      The following Order of the Court was delivered :

      This appeal by special leave arises from the order of the Delhi High        B
Court, made on August 1, 1985 dismissing the writ petition on the ground
that the conclusion reached and the findings recorded by the authorities
under the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act,
1954, (44 of 1954) (for short, the 'Act') are a question of fact and exercising
the power under Article 226 of the Constitution could not be reopened by          C
the Court. With a view to find out whether the conclusion reached by the
learned Judges is correct in law, it is necessary to state the material facts.

       One Chandu Mal Sippy, father of respondent Nos. 4 and 5, Khushi
Ram Sippy and Narain Dutt Sippy, was a resident of Nawabshah in West
Pakistan. While the father and one of his brothers remained in Pakistan, D
after the partition of India domain into Pakistan and India, the said
respondents migrated in 1947 to India. Their father died some time in the
last week of April 1955 in Pakistan. They filed their application under
Section 4 of the Act on December 19, 1955 claiming rehabilitation com-
pensation under the Act. In lieu thereof, the authorities at different stages E
verified the claims and found them entitled to the compensation and
consequentially the land in possession of the appellant was allotted to
them. The appellant had challenged in the proceedings before the
authorities under the Act but was unsuccessful. The High Court confirmed
it. Thus, this appeal by special leave.
                                                                                  F
      The question arises : whether the respondent 4 and 5, though are
displaced persons, are entitled to their claims verified under the Act? With
a view to appreciate their claims, it is necessary to see the relevant
provisions in the Act. Section 2(b) of the Act defines 'displaced person' to
mean "any person who, on account of the setting up of Dominions of India G
and Pakistan, or on account of civil disturbances or the fear of such
disturbances in any area forming part of West Pakistan, has, after the first
day of March, 1947, left or been displaced from his place of residence in
such area and who has been subsequently residing in India, and includes
any person who is resident in any place forming part of India and who for
that reason is unable or has been rendered unai:Jle to manage, supervise H
    572                  SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996] SUPP. 9 S.C.R.

A or control any immovable property belonging to him in West Pakistan, and
    also includes the successors-in-interest of any such person." Section 2(e)
    defines 'verified claim' thus :

            (e) "verified claim" means any claim registered under the Displaced
            Persons (Claims) Act, 1950 in respect of which a final order has
                                                                                   -
B           been passed under that Act or under the Displaced Persons
            (Claims) Supplementary Act, 1954, [and includes any claim
            registered on or before 31st day of May, 1953, under the (East
            Punjab Refugees (Registration of Land Claims) Act, 1948] or
            under the Patiala Refugees (Registration of Land Claims) Or-
c           dinance, 2004, and verified by any authority appointed for the
            purpose by the Government of Punjab, the Government of Patiala
            or the Government of Patiala and Punjab States Union, as the case
            may be, which has not been satisfied wholly or partially by the
            allotment of any evacuee land under the relevant notification
            specified in Section 10 of this Act, but does not include-
D
                 (i) any such claim registered in respect of property held in
                 trust for a public purpose of a religious or charitable nature;

               (ii) except in the case of a banking company for the purpose
E           of sub-clause (i) of clause (b) or sub-section (3) of Section 6,
            only -

                 (a) any such claim made by or on behalf of any company or
                 association, whether incorporated or not;

F                (b) any such claim made by a mortgagee or other person
                 holding a charge or lien on immovable property belonging to
                 a displaced person in West Pakistan;"

    Section 4(1) of the Act envisages that :

G           "4.(1) The Central Government shall, from time to time, but not
            later than the thirtieth day of June, 1955, by notification in the
            Official Gazette, require all displaced person having a verified
            claim to make applications for the payment of compensation and
            any such notification may be issued with reference to displaced
H           persons residing in any State or in any one of a group of States.
          PRITAM KAUR v. DY. SECY., MIN. OF HOME AFFAIRS                  573

        (2) Every displaced person who, by a notification issued under A
        sub-section (1), is required to make an application for the payment
        of compensation shall make such application in the prescribed
        form to the Settlement Officer having jurisdiction, within three
        months of the date of the notification;"
                                                                                 B
      The rest of the details are not necessary for the purpose of this case.

      A reading of these provisions does indicate that a displaced person
must be a person who on account of the division of the Dominion of India,
into India, i.e., Bharat and Pakistan, on account of civil disturbances or the
fear of such disturbances in any area now forming part of West Pakistan,         C
has after the first day of March, 1947, left West Pakistan or been displaced
from his place of residence in such area and who has been subsequently
residing in India and who for that reason, is unable or has been rel)dered
unable to manage, supervise or control any immovable property belonging
to him in West Pakistan. In other words, a displaced person must have left       D
West Pakistan before the specified dates and he must have left behind him,
while migrating from West Pakistan and settlement in India, immovable
property belonging to him, which, on account of his displacement, he was
unable to manage, supervise or control. Such a person is required to file
his claims either under the Act, or under Displaced Persons (Claims)
Supplementary Act, 1954 and to include any claim registered on or before         E
31st day of May, 1953 under East Punjab Refugees (Registration of Land
Claims) Act, 1955 or under the Patiala Refugees (Registration of Claims)
Ordinance, 2004 and verified by any authority appointed for the purpose
by the Government of Punjab, the Government of Patiala or the Govern-
ment of Patiala and East Punjab States Union, as the case may be, which          F
has not been satisfied wholly or partially by the allotment of any evacuee
land under the relevant notification specified in Section 10 of the Act. The
exclusionary clauses are not relevant for the purpose of this case.

      In paragraph 9 of the SLP filed in this Court, the appellants have
specifically stated thus :                                                       G

        "On the death of their father the present respondents No. 4 and 5
        filed an application bearing No. RG/95/B/E/144, which is on
        record of the case at pages 41-43. In column B(V)(2) at page 2 of
        the RG application, the en ... reads as under :                          H
    574                   SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996] SUPP. 9 S.C.R.

A             If land stands in revenue In the name of my father .Jate
              records in the name of anyone Diwan Chandu Mal, R.B. Jagat
              other than the applicant and if Rai Sipahi, Malani, who died
              so how applicants are entitled on the field of Pakistan on
              to the land as determined?      27.4.55 and on whose death
                                              property devolves on me and
B
                                              my only brother Mr. Khushi
                                              Ram Chandu Mal for whom I
                                              am filing as Kart a of the Joint
                                              family."

C       Though the respondents have been served for this averment and are
  appearing though counsel, they have not filed any counter-affidavit disput-
  ing the correctness of the averment made in the application. Accordingly,
  we proceed on the basis that this is the correct averment made by them in
  their application. Their application, thus, discloses that their father died on
D April 27, 1955 in Pakistan; on his demise Narain Dutt Sippy, himself and
  Khushi Ram Sippy are the legal representatives succeeded by interstate-
  succession to the estate left by their father in Pakistan. Accordingly, they
  came to file the application under Section 4(1) in December 1955.

          The question, therefore, is : whether the respondents have satisfied
E   the requirements of law to have the claims settled under the Act in their
    favour? It is seen that though they are displaced persons, they did not leave
    behind them, while migrating to India, any immovable property of their
    own in West Pakistan. They did not file any claims on or before May 31,
    1953, as enjofued in Section 2( e) of the Act nor are their claims verified
F   before June 30 1955 as enjoined in Section 4(1). The application for claim
    for compensation was not filed before June 30, 1955.

           From the evidence, it appears that, admittedly, they filed their ap-
    plications in December 1955. Under these circumstances, the findings
    recorded by the authorities that the properties are the joint family proper-
G   ties in which the respondent Nos. 4 and 5 had a share and, therefore, they
    are entitled to file their claims, are ex facie incorrect in view of the
    admission made by Narain D'ltt Sippy by himself and on behalf of Khushi
    Ram Sippy, his brother, that they succeeded, by intestate succession, to the
    property left by his father on his demise on April 27, 1955 in Pakistan.
H   Therefore, this is not a case of their bearing immovable property at the
          PRITAMKAURv. DY.SECY.,MIN.OFHOMEAFFAIRS                         575

time of their displacement. On the other hand, they have succeeded to the A
immovable property by intestate succession left by his father in Pakistan in
April 1955, on his demise.

      The question, therefore, arises : whether such a claim can be
registered under the Act after the expiry of the limitation prescribed under
the Act and whether the authorities were justified to register and verify the    B
same? In fact, Section 4(1) itself gives power for making an application of
the verified claims. In other words, the claims registered under the Act or
the Supplementary Act, 1954 or the States Acts referred to earlier, could
be verified before the appropriate date and they alone are entitled to make
the application by a notification before June 30, 1955. In view of the           C
admission that the application came to be made in December 1955, the
application is clearly barred and is not warranted. The entertainment of
application and disposal by the authorities, though at the instance of the
revisional authorities, is not in accordance with law.

       It is stated that the appellant also is a displaced person, though he     D
was found to be in excess of the prescribed standard acres, Shri S.K Bagga,
learned senior counsel appearing for the appellants, contends that by
operation of Rule 62 of the Rules, he is entitled to purchase the land as
per the procedure prescribed thereunder. When we asked the learned
counsel to place before us the order allotment and all the details, he was       E
unable to place any of the material before us. As a result, we cannot go
into that question. If law permits and the appellant is entitled in accordance
with law, it may be open to him to avail of the ·remedy in accordance with
law.

      The appeal is accordingly allowed. The order of the High Court and         F
that of the authorities stand set aside. No costs.

T.N.A.                                                      Appeal allowed.