Since the Evacuee Property Act, 1950 has been repealed, we see no justification in the order dated 30.04.2009 passed by the High Court remanding back the matter to the Settlement Commissioner to consider the claim of the respondents once again inasmuch as the issue as to whether or not respondents are authorised or unauthorised occupants of the land in dispute and as to whether or not the respondents are entitled to alternative plots or rehabilitation are matters which can be adjudicated upon separately in accordance with law but not in the manner as suggested by the High Court. Even if respondents are entitled to rehabilitation under any law the same has to be established by due process of law. But they cannot claim any land within the acquired area/55.0 Acres of Development Scheme but in case an order is passed in their favour, they would be rehabilitated in alternative plot(s)

                                                                    REPORTABLE


                    IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

                      CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION




                      CIVIL APPEAL NO.  5461 OF 2011

                 [Arising out of SLP (C) No. 14396 of 2010]




Jalandhar Improvement Trust                           .... Appellant





                                        Versus





Vinod Kumar & Ors.                                                .... Respondents





                                         JUDGMENT




Dr. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA, J.



1. For the reasons stated  in the application for condonation of



      delay,   we   are   of   the   view   that   there   is   sufficient   cause   for



      such condonation.  Accordingly, delay condoned.



2. Leave granted.




3.    This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated


      30.04.2009  passed  by  the  High  Court  of Punjab  & Haryana



      at   Chandigarh   in   Civil   Writ   Petition   No.   10203   of   2007,



      whereby   the   High   Court   disposed   of   the   writ   petition   by


      remanding back the matter to the Settlement Commissioner



      for   considering   the   claims   of   the   respondents   while



      maintaining status quo in the matter.




4. Brief facts leading to the filing of the present appeal are that



      the land in dispute belongs to the State.  It is averred by the



      respondents   that  they   have  occupied   the   land   in   dispute   in



      the   year   1947,   measuring   2-1/2   kanals   in   Khasra   No.



      16693/6729 in the 55.0 Acres Development Scheme as they



      were   displaced   persons   from   Pakistan.     On   the   other   hand



      the appellant - Improvement Trust Jalandhar has stated that



      respondents   encroached   the  said   land  which  belongs   to  the



      Government.




5.    An Award was passed on 05.01.1977 by the Land Acquisition


      Collector, Jalandhar Improvement Trust in Land Acquisition



      No.   1  of   1975-76   and   in   the   said   Award,   it   was   stated   that



      the   State   Government   (Local   Government)   vide   their



      notification   No.   8080-3CI-75/21963   dated   the   10th  July,



      1975,   issued   under   Section   42   of   the   Punjab   Town



      Improvement   Act,   1922,   accorded   sanction   to   the



      Development   Scheme   for   an   area   measuring   approximately





                                      Page 2 of 13


      55.0   acres   on   Police   Lines   Road,   behind   Commissioner's



      Office,   Jalandhar   framed   by   the   Jalandhar   Improvement



      Trust.   The   aforesaid   Trust   vide   its   Memorandum   No.



      JIT/3058   dated   the   26th  July,   1975,   applied   for   the



      acquisition   of   the   non-evacuee   and   composite   property



      comprised   in   the   Scheme   under   the   Land   Acquisition   Act,



      1894.   It   was   also   stated   in   the   aforesaid   award   that



      according to the acquisition file prepared by the revenue staff



      of   the   Trust   total   area   of   the   scheme   works   out   to   be   598



      Kanal   2   Marlas   and   out   of   this   area   measuring   69   Kanals



      and   2  Marlas   belongs   to   the   Improvement   Trust,   Jalandhar



      itself.   The   aforesaid   Award   included   the   area   in   dispute



      which is the subject matter of the present case.




6.    The respondents, however, contended inter alia that they are


      in occupation of the said land by way of evacuee property as



      they   were  being  displaced   persons  from  Pakistan.    The said



      land   was   transferred   to   the   Improvement   Trust,   Jalandhar



      for   the   execution   of   55.0   Acres   Development   Scheme



      developed by the Punjab Government.   The Land Acquisition



      Collector   vide   its   Award   dated   5th  January,   1977   held   that



      the   land   occupied   by   the   respondents   had   already   been




                                      Page 3 of 13


   received   by   the   Improvement   Trust,   Jalandhar   in   the



   package deal.




7. Respondents   filed   an   application   for   grant   of   proprietary



   rights  in respect of land  measuring  2-1/2 kanals in Khasra



   No.   16693/6729   in   the   55.0   Acres   Development   Scheme.



   However, the application filed by the respondents for grant of



   proprietary   rights   was   dismissed   by   the   Naib   Tehsildar   (S),



   M.O.   Jalandhar   on   03.08.1981   on   the   ground   that   the



   aforesaid   area   had   already   been   acquired   by   the



   Improvement Trust Jalandhar and that it was not an evacuee



   property.




8. The   respondents   then   filed   appeals   before   the   Settlement



   Commissioner,            Punjab,         Rehabilitation         Department,



   Jalandhar   against   the   order   dated   03.08.1981   which   were



   accepted   by   the   Settlement   Commissioner   vide   its   order



   dated   5.10.1981   and   remanded   the   matter   to   the   Tehsildar



   (S)-cum-M.O., Jalandhar for fresh decision, after hearing the



   respondents.




9. In   the   meantime   the   predecessor-in-interest   of   the



   respondents   Nos.   1   &   2   filed   a   civil   suit   seeking   for





                                 Page 4 of 13


  injunction          restraining          the         appellant         herein         from



  dispossessing   the   predecessor-in-interest   from   the   land



  illegally, unlawfully or by force.  The Trial Court, namely, the



  Sub Judge passed an order in the said suit that the plaintiff



  would  not be  dispossessed from  the   suit  property  otherwise



  than in due course of law.   The said order of the Trial Court



  was also upheld by the Additional District Judge, Jalandhar



  vide his judgment dated 18.01.1985.




10.Subsequent   to   the   aforesaid   order,   an   application   under



  Sections   5   and   7   of   the   Punjab   Public   Premises   Land



  [Eviction and Rent Recovery] Act No. 31 of 1973 [hereinafter



  referred   to   as   the   "Eviction   Act"]   was   filed   by   the   appellant



  initiating   a   proceeding   for   eviction   of   the   respondents.     The



  competent authority issued notice to the respondents and at



  the   stage   when   the   said   proceeding   was   at   the   stage   of



  evidence, the file of the case lost, consequent upon which the



  proceeding was stopped.




11.In the meantime the respondents filed a Writ Petition before



  the   Punjab   and   Haryana   High   Court   contending   inter   alia



  that the aforesaid land is an evacuee property and therefore





                                     Page 5 of 13


  the aforesaid initiation of proceedings under Sections  5 and



  7   of   the   Punjab   Public   Premises   Land   [Eviction   and   Rent



  Recovery] Act No. 31 of 1973 is without jurisdiction.




12. The appellant herein filed a counter affidavit in the said writ



  petition.     The  High   Court  by   its   order   dated   12.05.2006



  disposed   of   the   said   writ   petition   by   holding   that   if   the



  Settlement   Commissioner   finds   that   the   claim   of   the



  respondents  is  without any merit and   they  are  not entitled



  to   any   alternative   sites/rehabilitation   then   they   would   also



  have   no   action   to   claim   to   retain   the   sites   which   are   under



  their possession.   Pursuant to the aforesaid directions of the



  High Court the matter was placed before the Sub Divisional



  Magistrate,   Jalandhar   by   the   respondents   herein   for



  allotment of property comprising in Khasra No. 16693/6729



  situated in Bhisti Darwaja, Civil Lines, Jalandhar.




13.The   Sub   Divisional   Magistrate,   Jalandhar   passed   an   order



  dated 27.04.2007 holding that the case could not be decided



  in   view   of   repeal   of   Displaced   Persons   (Compensation   &



  Rehabilitation) Act, 1954 by the Ministry of Law and Justice,



  Legislative Department, New Delhi.





                                  Page 6 of 13


14.Thereupon,   the   respondents   herein   filed   a   separate   writ



   petition  for  quashing   the  order  dated   27.04.2007  passed  by



   the Settlement Commissioner which was registered as 10203



   of 2007.  In the said writ petition the State of Punjab filed its



   counter   affidavit   in   which   it   was   averred   that   the



   respondents   have   already   transferred   their   land   which   was



   being used as residential. With regard to the remaining land



   being   used   for   Dairy,   it   was   stated   that   they   are   not   using



   the   said   land   as   the   Dairy   business   has   been   shifted   to



   Jamsher   Tehsil   Jalondha   in   the   light   of   the   decision   of



   Municipal Corporation of Jalandhar wherein the respondents



   have   been   allotted   four   different   plots   bearing   Nos.   139   to



   142 vide letter dated 12.03.2008.




15. The  High   Court   passed   an  order   dated   30.04.2009   which   is



   the   impugned   order   herein   and   whereby   the  High   Court



   remanded   back   the   matter   to   the   Settlement   Commissioner



   once   again   to   consider   the   claims   of   the   respondents   and



   also   stayed   their   dispossession   till   the   matter   is   decided   by



   the Settlement Commissioner.





                                   Page 7 of 13


16.Being   aggrieved   by   the   said   order   the   present   appeal   was



   filed   on   which   we   heard   the   learned   counsel   appearing   for



   the parties. Counsel appearing for the parties have taken us



   meticulously through the entire records.




17.There can be no dispute with regard to the fact that the land



   in dispute is a part of the Award and the same belongs to the



   Punjab   Town   Improvement/Government   being   a   part   of



   development   scheme.     The   respondents   claimed   to   be   in



   possession   of   the   said   land   as   an   evacuee   property.     If   in



   case the respondents were in possession of the said land as



   an   evacuee   property   and   not   as   encroachers   meaning



   thereby   holding   right   and   title   to   hold   and   possess   such



   land,   they   were   required   to   challenge   the   Award   passed   on



   05.01.1977.   The said Award having not been challenged by



   the  respondents   the  same   has  become   final  and  binding  on



   all concerned.




18.The   civil   suit   filed   by   the   predecessor-in-interest   of   the



   respondents   Nos.   1   &   2   was   disposed   of   by   the   trial   court,



   namely,   the   Sub   Judge   with   a   direction   that   the   plaintiff



   would  not be  dispossessed from  the   suit  property  otherwise





                                   Page 8 of 13


than in due course of law as respondents were in possession



of the land, may be as encroachers.  Consequent thereto, the



appellant has moved the competent authority for initiation of



proceedings   under   the   Punjab   Public   Premises   Land



(Eviction   and   Rent   Recovery)   Act,   1973.     In   the   said



proceedings   all   the   issues   could   be   urged   as   to   whether   or



not   the   respondents   are   owners   and   have   their   rights   over



the disputed land and also as to whether or not appellant is



owner of the land and as to whether or not the respondents



are   authorised   occupants   or  unauthorised   occupants   of   the



land.  It was also averred clearly in the writ petition and also



in   this   appeal   that   the   respondents   have   been   allotted   four



alternative plots in lieu of their occupation of the land which



is part of the disputed land.  The aforesaid fact although has



been   disputed   by   the   respondents   in   their   counter   affidavit



but   no  documentary   evidence   has  been  placed  on  record  to



indicate   that   the   aforesaid   land   was   not   allotted   by   the



Government to the respondents and that they had purchased



the   land   by   paying   full   consideration   thereof   from   the



competent authority.





                               Page 9 of 13


19.Be that as it may, as to whether or not the respondents are



  lawful   owners   of   the   land   in   question   or   they   are   mere



  encroachers and liable to be evicted would be gone into and



  decided   although   in   a   summary   manner   in   the   proceedings



  which were initiated against them.  




20. Since the Evacuee Property Act, 1950 has been  repealed, we



  see no justification in the order dated 30.04.2009 passed by



  the High Court remanding back the matter to the Settlement



  Commissioner to consider the claim of the respondents once



  again   inasmuch   as   the   issue   as   to   whether   or   not



  respondents   are   authorised   or   unauthorised   occupants   of



  the land in dispute and as to whether or not the respondents



  are entitled  to  alternative plots  or rehabilitation are matters



  which   can   be   adjudicated   upon   separately   in   accordance



  with   law   but   not   in   the   manner   as   suggested   by   the   High



  Court.   Even   if   respondents   are   entitled   to   rehabilitation



  under any law the same has to be established by due process



  of  law.  But  they   cannot  claim   any   land  within   the   acquired



  area/55.0 Acres of Development Scheme but in case an order



  is   passed   in   their   favour,   they   would   be   rehabilitated   in



  alternative plot(s).   Therefore, they would have to prove their




                                Page 10 of 13


  case   before   the   competent   authority   and   not   before   the



  Settlement Commissioner.  However, in order to comply with



  the   directions   of  the   Civil   Court   and   also  for   his  eviction   in



  accordance   with   law,   proceeding   has   to   be   initiated   under



  the Public Premises Eviction Act, which stands initiated, and



  therefore,   the   said   proceeding   should   be   continued   till   the



  same would come to a logical end.




21. The   respondents   have   not   challenged   the   award   and



  therefore the aforesaid Award has become final and binding.



  Therefore,   we   set   aside   the   order   passed   by   the  High   Court



  and   hold   that   the   proceedings   initiated   against   the



  respondents   under   Sections   5   and   7   of   the   Eviction   Act



  would   be   allowed   to   be   continued   and   the   same   shall   be



  brought to a logical end as expeditiously as possible.




22.The land in question is a part of the Development Plan and



  therefore   the   matter   requires   urgent   consideration.     In   any



  case   the   land   in   question   being   a   part   of   the   Development



  Plan   cannot   be   left   to   the   occupation   of   the   respondents   if



  they are held to be encroachers by passing an interim order.



  Therefore,   in   our   considered   opinion   the   proceedings   to





                                  Page 11 of 13


   adjudicate upon and decide as to whether or not respondents



   are   authorised   or   unauthorised   occupants   of   the   land   in



   dispute   should   be   completed   and   brought   to   an   end.   As   to



   whether  or  not  the   respondents   are  encroachers   would  also



   be   decided   in   the   said   proceeding.       All   other   claims



   regarding entitlement of alternative plot or rehabilitation and



   whether or not such land is already allotted as rehabilitation



   package   could   be   raised   by   the   respondents   only   after   the



   proceeding   initiated   under   the   Eviction   Act   is   finalised   and



   also depending on its outcome.




23.Six   months   time   is   granted   to   the   competent   authority   to



   complete proceedings initiated under Sections 5 and 7 of the



   Eviction   Act,   so   that,   the   matter   is   disposed   of     as



   expeditiously   as   possible   as   the   same   is   pending   for   a   very



   long time.




24. Therefore, the present appeal is allowed and the order passed



   by the High Court accordingly stands quashed.  We leave the



   parties to bear their own costs.





                                         ...................................................J





                                    Page 12 of 13


                                                   [Dr. Mukundakam Sharma]





                                    ...................................................J

                                              [Anil R. Dave]



New Delhi,

July 15, 2011.





                                 Page 13 of 13