M.M. Kumar, J. - (1.) THIS appeal under Clause x of the Letters Patent is directed against judgment dated 25.10.1985 rendered by the learned Single Judge in RFA No. 390 of 1975 vide which the learned Single Judge has rejected the claim of the appellant S.A. Jain College Trust, Ambala City or apportionment of compensation in respect of the land acquired vide notification No. 6605 -EDI/13595 dated 15.5.1968 read with notification Nos. 4034 -EDI/69/14965 dated 11.6.1969 and No. 10244/EDI/69/20482 dated 13.8.1969 issued under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short 'the Act'). The claim of the appellant for apportionment under Section 30 of the Act was rejected earlier by the learned Additional District Judge, Ambala, vide his order dated 30.12.1974.
(2.) THIS case is a classical illustration of miseries heaped on a migrant resulting from the allotment of evacuee land. This historical and unique exodus following the partition of the country in 1947 resulted into enactment of various Acts leading to decades long legal battles for the allottees. Shri Ahsan Elahi leased out land measuring 41 K -14 M situated in village Patti Jattan, Tehsil and District Ambala vide registered lease deed for a period of 99 years to the appellant -S.A. Jain College Trust, Ambala City. Section 5 -A of the East Punjab Evacuees (Administration of Property) Act, 1947 (for brevity, 1947 Act;) has provided that a lease deed executed after 15.8.1947 in respect of an evacuee property could be effective only if the Custodian had confirmed it. The appellant submitted the lease deed to the custodian for confirmation. The custodian in its order dated 5.3.1949 relied on Section 11 of the Punjab Alienation of Land Act, 1900 (for brevity Alienation Act') and confirmed the lease for twenty years. Against order dated 5.3.1949 a revision was filed by the appellant which was dismissed by Deputy Custodian General of India on 24.4.1961 (Ex.R25). which reads as under: - "This is a revision petition directed against the order dated 5.3.1949 of the Additional Custodian Jullundur. Facts leading to it may briefly be stated as under: - On 13.9.1947 one Ahsan Elahi executed a lease deed for 27 Bighas 1 Biswa of land within the limits of Ambala City for a period of 99 years in favour of the petitioner, the S.A. Jain College Trust and Managing Society, Punjab and delivered possession to the lessee. After the execution of the lease lessor migrated to Pakistan and when the lessee applied to the Custodian for confirmation of the transfer the Additional Custodian Punjab granted the prayer but reduced the period from 99 years to 20 years on account of restrictions imposed by the Punjab Alienation of Lands Act then in force. On 19.3.1953 respondent No. 1 Amrik Singh, a refugee from West Pakistan got this land allotted from the Director Rural Rehabilitation in lieu of his land left behind and on 27.12.55 Managing Officer conferred permanent rights on him in the land. Petitioner preferred an appeal against the order of the Managing Officer, but the same was rejected by the Asstt. Settlement Commissioner on 16.1.57 and a revision against the appellate order was rejected by the Chief Settlement Commissioner on 8.1.58. As in the order of the Additional Custodian 5 Kanals of land not included in the lease had been included because of a mistake in the lease deed. In Suo Moto revision Chief Settlement Commissioner modified the order of the Additional Custodian by reducing the excess area. This order made on 20.1.60 and in the course of arguments before the Chief Settlement Commissioner petitioner brought up the question of revising the order of the Additional Custodian by extending the lease to the original term, but the petitioner's prayer was not granted and he was advised to file a separate revision if he so liked. Hence, the present revision filed on 25.1.1961. A preliminary objection has been raised on behalf of the respondent No. 1 that the revision is time barred and hence must be rejected. Sec: 27 of the Administration of Evacuee Property Act gives plenary powers to the Custodian General in the matter of revision. He can do so at any time. These revisions can be at his own instance or at the instance of a party. In the rules framed under the Act no period is prescribed within which Custodian General can take action under the Act, if he of his own motion chooses to interfere with the order of a subordinate authority. But if he is moved by way of an application by a party then Rule 31(5) provides that these application must be given ordinarily within six months. Recently in Civil Appeal No. 754 of 1957 decided on 4.3.1961 - Purshotam Lal Dhawan v. Dewan Chaman Lal and Ors. the above rule was considered by the Supreme Court and their Lordships held that Rules could not limit the powers of the Custodian General given by the Act and though the Custodian general could entertain the revision petition at any time, yet he had to act judicially and not arbitrarily and when so acting the period mentioned in rule was to be his guide in determining whether delay is reasonable or not. In the present case the impugned order was passed on 5.3.1949 and the present petition was given on 25.1.61 i.e. after the lapse of about 12 years and prima facie there is inordinate delay. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners were three. The first was that the revision petitioner had secured allotment of land by the Director Rural Rehabilitation by an ex parte order and by suppressing correct facts and by misrepresentation. Without examining the allegations of the petitioners on merits, it must be held that even if what the petitioners allege is true it affords no ground for extending time. The submission is not relevant. If the allegations are proved to be true that might have the effect of respondent No. 1 being deprived of the land and the land being given to some one else after the expiry of the lease but that was not a circumstance that could stand in the way of the petitioners moving against the order of the Addl. Custodian within the time mentioned in the Rule. The learned counsel for the petitioners could not tell me what the respondent did that prevented the petitioners from filing the revision. The two were independent matters. The second submission was that after respondent No. 1 secured permanent rights in 1955 the petitioners were prosecuting appeal and revision against respondent No. 1 and in those proceedings respondent No. 1 had moved Custodian Deptt, for cancellation of the lease in favour of the petitioners and it was only on 20.12.60 that the matter was ultimately decided and hence all this period merited exclusion. I find little force in the above submission. Allotment of permanent rights to respondent No. 1 had nothing to do with the term of lease of the petitioner. Prosecution of appeal and revision did not stand in the way of the petitioner filing a revision against the order of the Additional Custodian. Even the revision of the petitioners was rejected on 8.1.58 and there was no excuse for sleeping over the matter for the next three years. Order of 20.10.60 only took away a small area of 5 kanals which had wrongly been included in the lease deed and the petitioner never were laying any claim to it as it apparent from para 8 of the petition. How could proceedings initiated in this connection prevent petitioner from filing his revision petition or had any connection with that wrong entry in the lease deed? The third submission was that petitioners were running a school and the disputed land was for a school grounds and if school was deprived of the land students would suffer heavily. This again is not valid ground for condoning delay. The petitioner society should have thought of the interests of the students years earlier and not allowed time to run and then on sentimental grounds taken shelter behind its apparent apathy. It may be true that the school caters for a large number of children of displaced persons, but there appears little excuse that for the sake of those children respondent No. 1 who is also a displaced person and who has been waiting patiently for his land at the end of the lease granted in 1949, should sacrifice his rights and loose the reward that the present value of the land gives him. In view of the above I do not consider it necessary to examine the merits of the petition and reject it as barred by time." All leases of land made by an evacuee in favour of a person other than an evacuee were terminated by Section 9 of the East Punjab Displaced Persons (Land Resettlement 'Act'), 1949 (for brevity '1949 Act') Section 9 created one exception and it empowered Additional Custodian to grant exemption to a lease from termination. The appellant also applied for exemption and vide order dt. 24.11.1952 exemption was granted. Otherwise lease dated 15.9.1947 would be deemed to have been terminated on 25.7.1949.
(3.) ON 19.3.1953 the Director Rural Rehabilitation allotted the land to respondent -Shri Amrik Singh in lieu of the land he had left in West Pakistan under the provisions of Administration of Evacuee Property Act, 1950 (for brevity '1950 Act') A rapat in this regard was entered by the Managing Officer on 2.10.1955. Against this order, the appellant filed an appeal on 23.1.1956 and the same was rejected on 16.1.1957 by the Assistant Settlement Commissioner exercising the powers of Settlement Commissioner. A revision against the order of the Assistant Settlement Commissioner was also dismissed on 8.1.1958. Thereafter some litigation at the instance of the appellant was undertaken but without making any material difference. All these aspects have been noticed in the above reproduced order of the Deputy Custodian General of India. The appellant was, thus, lessee on the land in question for a period of 20 years, which came to an end on 31.8.1967.;