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 rules quasi-permanent allottee rights not property under Constitution</h1> <h3>Amar Singh Versus Custodian, Evacuee Property, Punjab</h3> The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, ruling that the rights of a quasi-permanent allottee did not amount to property under Articles 19(1)(f), 31(1), ... - Issues Involved:1. Whether the rights of a quasi-permanent allottee constitute property within the meaning of Articles 19(1)(f), 31(1), and 31(2) of the Constitution.2. Whether the orders of the Custodian and Deputy Custodian-General cancelling the quasi-permanent allotment amount to a violation of fundamental rights contemplated by the above articles.Detailed Analysis:Issue 1: Whether the rights of a quasi-permanent allottee constitute property within the meaning of Articles 19(1)(f), 31(1), and 31(2) of the Constitution.The petitioners, displaced persons from Pakistan, were allotted agricultural land on a quasi-permanent basis. They claimed that this allotment constituted property under Articles 19(1)(f), 31(1), and 31(2) of the Constitution, which protect the right to acquire, hold, and dispose of property and protect against deprivation of property without authority of law.The judgment detailed the historical context of the allotments, noting the mass migrations due to the partition of India and the subsequent administrative measures to rehabilitate displaced persons. The allotments were initially temporary but evolved into quasi-permanent allotments, as indicated by the East Punjab Government's Press Communique dated February 7, 1948, and subsequent notifications and rules.The court examined various legislative measures, including the Administration of Evacuee Property Act, 1950, and the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954, which governed the administration and allotment of evacuee property. The court noted that the interest of a quasi-permanent allottee was subject to conditions and could be canceled by the Custodian under specific circumstances.The court concluded that the rights of a quasi-permanent allottee did not constitute property within the meaning of the Constitution. The court reasoned that the interest was provisional and subject to administrative control and cancellation, lacking the stability and permanence required to be considered property. The court stated, 'The sum total thereof does not in any sense constitute even qualified ownership of the land allotted.'Issue 2: Whether the orders of the Custodian and Deputy Custodian-General cancelling the quasi-permanent allotment amount to a violation of fundamental rights contemplated by the above articles.The petitioners argued that the cancellation of their allotment violated their fundamental rights to property. The court reviewed the statutory provisions and rules governing the cancellation of allotments, noting that the Custodian had wide powers to cancel or vary allotments based on administrative considerations.The court examined whether the cancellation orders were issued without notice to the petitioners and whether this constituted a violation of their rights. The court found that the orders were issued under the authority of law, specifically the Administration of Evacuee Property Act, 1950, and the rules framed thereunder. The court emphasized that even if the exercise of authority was wrong, it was not an illegal usurpation of jurisdiction, as the actions were within the scope of the statutory powers.The court held that the cancellation of the quasi-permanent allotment did not amount to a violation of the petitioners' fundamental rights. The court stated, 'It is the working out of the right of resumption or cancellation which was one of the incidents of the property.'Conclusion:The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that the rights of a quasi-permanent allottee did not constitute property within the meaning of Articles 19(1)(f), 31(1), and 31(2) of the Constitution. The court also held that the cancellation of the allotment did not violate the petitioners' fundamental rights, as it was done under the authority of law. The judgment emphasized the provisional and administrative nature of the quasi-permanent allotment, which lacked the stability and permanence required to be considered property.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
