- (1.) THIS petition came up for hearing before my learned brother Narula, J. , on march 13, 1970, and it was referred to a larger Bench on the ground that the question of law involved seemed to be of substantial importance and if the writ petition succeeded, it might have far-reaching consequences. In pursuance of that order, the petition was placed for hearing before my learned brethern Narula and suri, JJ. and noticing that there was an earlier judgment of Tek Chand and Pandit. JJ. , in Bishan Singh v. Central Government ILR (1961)1 Punj 415= (AIR 1961 Punj 451), which seemed to be in conflict with another Division Bench judgment of S. B. Capoor and Shamsher Bahadur, JJ. , in Ram Chander v. State of Punjab, ILR (1968) 2 Punj and Har 651= (AIR 1969 Punj 4), the learned Judges directed that the papers might be placed before Honourable Chief Justice for constituting a Full bench for the hearing and disposal of this petition. This order was passed on July 21, 1970 and in pursuance of that order the writ petition has come up for hearing before us.
(2.) THE petitioners are 26 in number and in para 1 of the petition they have stated that they are displaced persons from West Pakistan and are now living in the State of Punjab. Some of them are claim-holders in respect of urban agricultural land and some are claim-holders for immovable property other than agricultural land, while others are lessees/sub-lessees of acquired evacuee urban agricultural lands. An objection was taken in the written statement file by respondent 2 that the petitioners had not given the particulars of their verified claims so that no reply could be given whether they had any interest in the compensation pool so as to entitle them to challenge the 'package Deal' which was entered into between the union of India and the State of Punjab on February 27, 1970. the petitioners filed an amended writ petition but again they did not state the particulars of their claims. Ultimately, they filed a replication and along with that replication they filed affidavits of eight petitioners. The affidavits show that they have already received full compensation in accordance with the scales prescribed in Appendix VIII to the displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Rules, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules) which Appendix is referred to in Rule 16 thereof. At the hearing of the petition, the learned counsel for the petitioners has argued the petition on the footing that all the petitioners has argued the petition on the footing that all the petitioners are satisfied claim-holders, that is, they are displaced persons from West Pakistan who got their claims verified and their verified claims have been satisfied in accordance with the scales prescribed in R. 16 read with Appendix VIII ibid. On this admission the question arises whether the petitioners have any locus standi to file this petition.
(3.) THE learned counsel for the petitioners have referred to the preamble of the displaced persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), which reads- "an Act to provide for the payment of compensation and rehabilitation grant to displaced persons and for matters connected therewith. " and has argued that the purpose and scheme of the Act is to pay compensation and rehabilitation grants to displaced persons. It is further submitted that in order to achieve these objects the compensation pool was constituted under Section 14 of the Act and the management of that pool was provided in Section 16 thereof. Under Section 4 of the Act an application for payment of compensation is to be made by a displaced person having a verified claim. That application has to be processed under Sections 7 and 8 of the Act, which clearly provide that the compensation payable to the displaced person, having a verified claim, is to be determined according to the provisions of the Act and the Rules and out of that compensation certain public dues have to be deducted before satisfying those claims in the manner provided in the Act and the Rules. In my opinion, all these provisions referred to by the learned counsel lead to the conclusion that the displaced persons, having verified claims, were given the right to be paid a certain amount of compensation at the rates prescribed in Rule 16 read with Appendices viii and IX to the Rules. Once they are paid the compensation according to those prescribed rates, they have no further interest left in the compensation pool and have no right to control its management and disposal by the Central Government. There is no provision in the Act or the Rules which constitutes the Central government as a trustee or a constructive trustee or an accounting party for rendering accounts of the proceeds of the evacuee property acquired by it to the displaced persons. The purpose of acquisition of the evacuee property by the central Government under Section 12 of the Act was to grant relief to and rehabilitate the displaced persons, which included the payment of compensation to them. This section does not lead to the conclusion that the entire acquired evacuee property was to be utilised for the purposes of paying compensation and rehabilitation grants to the displaced persons. The Government acquired the property free from all the encumbrances and as full owner thereof. Having acquired the property, it was constituted into the compensation pool under Section 14 of the Act. This compensation pool did not consist only of the evacuee property acquired under Section 12 of the Act but also cash balances lying with the custodian, such contributions, in any form, whatsoever, as may be made to the compensation pool by the Central Government; or any State Government, and any such other assets as may be prescribed. From he language of this section it is quite clear that if the proceeds of the acquired evacuee property was not sufficient to pay the compensation payable to the displaced persons holding verified claims in accordance with the prescribed rates, the Government had to contribute amounts to the compensation pool to make up the deficiency. Similarly, if any evacuee property remained after satisfying the claims of all the claimants, it was to remain vested in the Central Government which is its owner and has the full liberty to dispose it of in any manner it deems fit. In the democratic set-up, it is not possible for the Government to behave in an arbitrary manner and, therefore, it cannot be presumed that the Central Government can deal with the property according to its whims and unmindful of the provisions of the Act and the Rules. The petitioners have, however, no right to control the actions of the Central government with regard to the disposal of the property in the compensation pool after their claims have been satisfied. ;