1968 (4) TMI 81 - SC - Indian Laws

Court denies land allotment to deceased individual's sons post-partition, emphasizing statutory provisions over administrative instructions.

The court held that Nanak Chand did not qualify as a displaced person or refugee under statutory definitions due to his death before civil disturbances, ... - Issues:Interpretation of statutory definitions of 'displaced person' and 'refugee' in the context of land allotment post-partition.Analysis:The case involved a dispute over land allotment post-partition of India. Nanak Chand, who owned land in Bahawalpur State, died in June 1947, leaving behind three sons. After partition, his sons migrated to India and received land allotments in lieu of their abandoned land in Pakistan. However, a complaint was filed alleging double allotment, leading to cancellation of a portion of the land allotted to the sons by the Managing Officer. The sons appealed, but the Chief Settlement Commissioner upheld the cancellation based on the interpretation of relevant statutes and manuals.The key issue revolved around whether Nanak Chand qualified as a 'displaced person' or 'refugee' under the statutory definitions, as only such individuals were entitled to land allotments post-partition. The relevant statutes defined these terms in the context of migration due to civil disturbances or partition. Since Nanak Chand died before the disturbances and did not abandon his land due to them, the court held that he did not meet the criteria to be considered a displaced person or refugee. Consequently, the land allotment could not be made in his name.The court rejected the argument that allotment should be in Nanak Chand's name based on revenue records, emphasizing that statutory provisions must prevail over administrative instructions. It highlighted the principle of the rule of law, emphasizing that executive actions must be tested for legality by the courts. The court also interpreted a manual provision to apply only to displaced land-holders who died after becoming displaced persons, not to cases like Nanak Chand's where he was not a displaced land-holder at the time of his death.Ultimately, the court dismissed the appeal, affirming that Nanak Chand did not qualify as a displaced person or refugee, and the land allotment could not be made in his name. The decision in this case was also applied to related appeals with identical legal questions, resulting in their dismissal as well.