TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Supreme Court confirms land reallotment in 'fauji' village under Evacuee Property Act</h1> <h3>SHIVDEO SINGH Versus STATE OF PUNJAB</h3> SHIVDEO SINGH Versus STATE OF PUNJAB - 1963 AIR 1909 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.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
