Displaced Person (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954: ss. 19(2)(b), 20 – Power to vary or cancel leases or allotment of any property acquired – Appellant-encroacher on evacuee property served with eviction notice u/s. 19(2)(b) – Writ petition by the appellant, challenging the eviction order – Dismissed by the High Court holding that it is an evacuee property, thus, the appellant has no right over it and is not entitled to claim regularization of his possession – Upheld by the Division Bench – On appeal, held: Encroacher does not have any right of regularization of an evacuee land in the presence of a displaced person entitled to allotment in order to satisfy the objective of the Act – Evacuee land can be allotted only to a displaced person alone – Allotment to non-displaced person can be considered only after all the displaced persons have been settled – On facts, perusal of the Circular dated 20.06.1978 shows that an encroacher can be considered for regularization of his possession only if there is no displaced person in terms of clause III – In terms of clause III, the Chief Settlement Commissioner allotted the land to Respondent No. 4 since he had balance verified claim – Appellant was ordered to be evicted being an unauthorized occupant of evacuee land – Thus, the clause to allot evacuee land to encroacher in the government policy dated 20.6.1978 is beyond the scheme and purpose of the Act – However, if any allotment has been made to an encroacher and had attained finality, the same will not be re-opened – Possession of the land was taken over by the Government on 24.01.2014 – As such, the claim for restoration of possession by an encroacher, is wholly untenable.
Dismissing the appeal, the Court
HELD:1.1 The appellant filed the writ petition soon after the eviction order was served upon him, wherein he made reference to the previous notice. He had further stated that he appeared before the Collector and also made an application for purchase of land in question. Though, he has stated that the eviction notice was dropped, no such order has been produced or referred to in the written submission filed. The stand is that his purchase application could not be considered on account of the pending writ petition. Thus, the appellant had received show cause notice for unauthorized possession of an evacuee property. The submission that eviction order was passed without notice is factually incorrect. [Para 6][43-E-G]
1.2 The relief claimed by the appellant in the writ petition was to quash and set aside the eviction order. The appellant has not sought any relief qua allotment or regularization of his possession of the land in question. Therefore, substantially, the claim of the appellant before the High Court was to examine as to whether the order of eviction passed was suffering from any illegality or irregularity which could have warranted interference in the writ proceedings. Since the claim of the appellant was limited only to challenge the eviction order and the fact that the possession of the appellant was not regularized before 23.06.1992, therefore, there is no illegality in the eviction notice issued against the appellant. Hence, in terms of Section 19 of the Act, the order of eviction passed cannot be said to be illegal or invalid. [Para 7][43-H; 44-A-C]
1.3 The appellant is in possession of a land meant for displaced person being an evacuee land, therefore, it is not the circular dated 08.01.1980 which is in respect of encroachment on public land that would be applicable but the Circular of 20.6.1978 under which the claim of the appellant for regularization of his possession alone can be examined. A perusal of the Circular dated 20.6.1978 would show that an encroacher can be considered for regularization of his possession only if there is no displaced person in terms of clause III. In terms of clause III, the Chief Settlement Commissioner allotted the land to Respondent No.
4 on 12.10.1990 since he had balance verified claim. The appellant was also ordered to be evicted being an unauthorized occupant of evacuee land. It cannot be said that the appellant was required to be heard before passing such an order as the appellant is not claiming any right being a displaced person. Between the displaced person and a land encroacher, the displaced person has a priority and thus, was rightly allotted land. [Para 8, 10-11][44C-D; 45-F, H; 46-A-B]
1.4 The respondent No. 4 is claiming allotment on the basis of government policy decision dated 20.06.1978, which contemplate that the allotment of the evacuee land shall be in terms of Section 20 of the Act. The evacuee land has to be allotted to a displaced person as it forms part of the compensation pool in terms of Section 14 which can be allotted in terms of Section 20 of the Act. The evacuee land can be allotted only to a displaced person alone. The allotment to non-displaced person can be considered only after all the displaced person have been settled. Therefore, the clause to allot evacuee land to encroacher in the policy dated 20.6.1978 is beyond the scheme and purpose of the Act. However, if any allotment has been made to an encroacher and had attained finality, the same will not be re-opened. Thus, an encroacher does not have any right of regularization of an evacuee land in the presence of a displaced person entitled to allotment in order to satisfy the objective of the Act. The possession of the land was taken over by the Government on 24.01.2014. The claim of the appellant, for restoration of possession by an encroacher, is wholly untenable. [Para 12-14][46F-H; 47-A-D]
Ramesh Parsram Malani v. State of Telangana (2020)
11 SCC 653 – distinguished.
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.