Welfare Rehabilitation Scheme – Object of, Explained Held: The rehabilitation programmes are introduced by the Government with the sole aim of re-establishment of the displaced/migrant families and not for the benefit of any individual – As a part of such welfare policies, the property is recorded in the name of one family member for the purpose of convenience even though the ensuing welfare is meant to be enjoyed by all the family members equally. (Para 1)
Welfare Legislation – Abuse of – Suit for Permanent Injunction filed maliciously by the Respondent/Head of the family against the rightful claim of other family members/younger brothers for usurping the entire allotment – Classic example of misuse/abuse of the welfare legislations by the beneficiaries for personal advantage – High Court erred by ignoring the affidavits and communication between the office of the Sub-Divisional Officer, the Deputy Commissioner and the Respondents which is admitted record – The record and admitted facts make it clear that the suit property was allotted under the policy of the Government for the displaced family and not for the individual
Held: The record shows that the elder brother/Head of the family, admittedly, gave statement before the concerned authorities during proceedings relating to allotment, in which he admitted that he along with his family members had migrated from East Pakistan to India, and the construction over the plot in question was made out of the joint income of the three brothers, and from the produce of the crops of the land that they held in East Pakistan – It was clearly mentioned that they lived jointly on the suit property and all members contributed proportionately – The Respondents cannot now turn around to claim the entire allotment made treating the family as a unit for rehabilitation to the exclusion of Appellants, by filing the malicious suit. (Paras 3.5, 8 & 9)
Suit – Dismissal of – High Court failed to consider that the suit in question ought to have been dismissed once the suit filed by the Respondents to challenge the cancellation of lease deed in the exclusive name of Smt. Hem Prova Basak was withdrawn – The very basis of filing the suit for permanent injunction was no longer in existence.
Held: The Respondents laid challenge to the cancellation of the 03.11.1975 lease deed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Siliguri, who allowed the request of Appellants herein for inclusion of their names in the lease deed along with the Respondents – The High Court failed to consider that the suit for permanent injunction was liable to be dismissed given that the suit filed by the Respondent(s) to declare aforesaid cancellation as null, void and illegal was withdrawn during the pendency of the second appeal, as the very basis of filing the suit in question stood eliminated. (Paras 3.7, 3.8, 4, 10)
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.