1961 (2) TMI 65 - SC - Indian Laws

Supreme Court confirms land reallotment in 'fauji' village under Evacuee Property Act

The Supreme Court upheld the reallotment of land in a village under the Administration of Evacuee Property Act, 1950, declaring the village as a 'fauji' ... Cancellation of allotment - validity and finality of administrative orders - effect of repeal and operation of saving proviso - implementability of orders made under repealed rules - power of High Court to review under Article 226 - principles of natural justiceCancellation of allotment - validity and finality of administrative orders - The order dated October 9, 1951 by the Director of Relief and Rehabilitation operated as a final cancellation of the appellants' allotments and was not merely tentative or inchoate. - HELD THAT: - A reading of the October 9, 1951 order shows that a decision had been taken to oust the non-fauji allottees, including the appellants, to make room for fauji families; the use of the word 'likely' qualified 'immediately' and did not convert the order into a mere proposal. The appellants themselves treated the order as final by seeking its cancellation in their writ petition and cannot now adopt a contrary stance in argument. [Paras 5, 6]The October 9, 1951 order is a final order effecting cancellation of allotment and not an inchoate or tentative proposal.Effect of repeal and operation of saving proviso - implementability of orders made under repealed rules - Whether the cancellation effected by the October 9, 1951 order could be implemented after June 15, 1952 under Rule 49 and its subsequent amendment. - HELD THAT: - Rule 49, as originally framed on July 22, 1952, contained a proviso preventing the operation of orders made after 25 May 1952 or not implemented by 15 June 1952; however Rule 49 was amended on August 4, 1952 by deleting that second proviso. The deletion removed the prohibition, so non-implementation of an order by 15 June 1952 would not thereafter bar its implementation. Thus the earlier non-implementation did not permanently preclude giving effect to the October 9, 1951 order. [Paras 4, 7]The subsequent amendment removing the proviso means the failure to implement the order by 15 June 1952 did not prohibit its later implementation.Power of High Court to review under Article 226 - principles of natural justice - Whether a High Court exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 is precluded from reviewing its own earlier order and from impleading persons whose interests were affected by that order. - HELD THAT: - Article 226 does not exclude the High Court's inherent power to review its own orders to prevent miscarriage of justice or correct grave errors. Where a prior order affected the interests of persons who were not made parties, the Court may entertain a subsequent petition to implead them and rehear the matter in order to give effect to principles of natural justice. Khosla J.'s second order in this case was thus within the High Court's powers to prevent injustice by granting affected persons a hearing. [Paras 8]The High Court may review its earlier order and entertain a petition to implead and hear persons whose interests were affected but who were not parties previously; the exercise was legitimate here to secure natural justice.Final Conclusion: Appeal dismissed with costs; the administrative order of October 9, 1951 was final in effect, its implementation was not permanently barred by the earlier proviso to Rule 49 after that proviso was deleted, and the High Court acted within its power under Article 226 in permitting impleading and rehearing to protect affected persons' rights. Issues:1. Validity of the order declaring the village as a 'fauji' village and the subsequent reallotment of land.2. Interpretation of Rules 14(6) and 49 of the Administration of Evacuee Property (Central) Rules, 1950.3. Review jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution.Analysis:Issue 1:The case involved the appeal against the decision of the Punjab High Court regarding the reallotment of agricultural lands in a village under the Administration of Evacuee Property Act, 1950. The Director of Rehabilitation declared the village as a 'fauji' village, leading to the cancellation of allotments made to 'non-fauji' families. The appellants challenged this order through a writ petition, which was allowed by the High Court. However, members of 'fauji' families sought to be impleaded in the case, leading to a rehearing. The subsequent appeal under the Letters Patent was dismissed by the High Court, prompting the appellants to approach the Supreme Court.Issue 2:The appellants argued that the power to cancel allotments was restricted by Rules 14(6) and 49 of the Administration of Evacuee Property (Central) Rules, 1950. They contended that the order of cancellation made by the Director of Relief and Rehabilitation could not be implemented after a specified date. The Court analyzed the language of Rule 49, emphasizing that the non-implementation of an order before a certain date did not prohibit its implementation thereafter. The Court also noted that the appellants had initially accepted the order as final, preventing them from challenging its finality later.Issue 3:Regarding the review jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution, the appellants questioned the second order of Khosla, J., which effectively reviewed his prior decision. The Court clarified that Article 226 does not preclude a High Court from exercising the power of review to prevent miscarriage of justice or correct errors. In this case, the second petition was entertained to ensure the interests of parties affected by the prior decision were considered, aligning with principles of natural justice. The Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the High Court's jurisdiction to review its own order in specific circumstances.In conclusion, the Supreme Court upheld the reallotment of land in the village, clarified the interpretation of relevant rules, and affirmed the High Court's jurisdiction to review its decisions in the interest of justice.