TMI Blog1961 (2) TMI 65X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sis. This allotment was made under the Administration of Evacuee Property Act, 1950 and rules made thereunder. In the month of July of that year the Director of Rehabilitation(Rural), Jullunder, declared the village to be a 'fauji village and stated that the land therein will have to be reallotted. This is what appears from his order dated July 10, 1950 (Ex. C), though, according to the statement of facts in the High Court, the Director of Rehabilitation had actually passed an order canceling the allotment already made in favour of non- fauji families. 3. It is an admitted fact that the appellants fall under the category of 'non-faujis'. On October 9, 1951 Mr. Vikram Singh Director of Relief and Rehabilitation, Punjab, mad ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... petition and rehearing the whole matter. The petition was entertained by the High Court and Khosla J., allowed it. The appellants preferred an appeal before the High Court under the Letters Patent, which, as already stated having been dismissed, they have come up to this Court in appeal by special leave. 4. It was not contended before us that the Director of Rehabilitation had no. power to declare a village as a Fauji village' nor was it contended that an allotment made in favour of a displaced person could never be cancelled. What was, however, contended was that by virtue of Rules 14(6) and 49 of the Administration of Evacuee Property (Central) Rules, 1950, the power to cancel an allotment could not be exercised after July 22, 1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at order extensively and a bare perusal thereof would show that there is no. substance in the contention of the learned counsel. it is true that Mr. Vikram Singh has stated in his order that the appellants are likely' to be ousted immediately. But the word likely qualifies not 'ousted but immediately . The order proceeds to say that the appellants seriously opposed the action and then says that the D. C. Gurdaspur will be asked to ascertain if he can find land for the oustees of Bhaini Bangar. This would indicate that a decision had already been taken by Mr. Vikram Singh to the effect that non-fauii' allottees of Bhaini Bangar including the appellants should be ousted to make room for faujit families, immediate action ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ification No. S. R. O. 1290 dated July 22, 1952, and though R. 49 saved anything done or any action taken in the exercise of any power conferred by any of the rules , it was the second proviso to R. 49 which prohibited the implementation of any order made under the repealed rules before May 25, 1952, unless that order was implemented or enforced on or before June 15, 1952. Rule 49 was amended on August 4, 1952 and the second proviso was deleted. The resultant position, therefore, is that the non-implementation of an order on or before June 15, l952, would not prohibit its implementation subsequent to that date. 8. The other contention of Mr. Gopal Singh pertains to the second order of Khosla, J., which in effect, reviews his prior order ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
