A) ABSTRACT / HEADNOTE

The landmark judgment in Dunichand Hakim and Others v. Deputy Commissioner (Deputy Custodian Evacuee Property), Karnal, State of Punjab and Others, decided by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, dealt with the legality and constitutionality of orders canceling quasi-permanent allotments made to displaced persons after the 1947 Partition. This case primarily concerned the rights of displaced persons who were earlier allotted land in East Punjab in lieu of land abandoned in Pakistan and whose allotments were later cancelled due to re-evaluation of their original land holdings as second-grade. The petitioners challenged this cancellation, invoking their right under Article 32 for enforcement of fundamental rights under Article 19(1)(f) of the Constitution.

The Court examined whether the Deputy Custodian had jurisdiction under the East Punjab Evacuees (Administration of Property) Act, 1947 and Administration of Evacuee Property Act, 1950 to cancel such allotments without issuing a formal notice, and whether such cancellations violated constitutional guarantees. The Supreme Court held that the authorities acted within their statutory powers and provided sufficient opportunity to the petitioners to present their case. It upheld the validity of the cancellation order, clarifying the non-permanent nature of quasi-permanent allotments and the policy-oriented, administrative discretion of resettlement schemes.

Keywords: Evacuee Property, Quasi-permanent Allotment, Article 32, Jurisdiction, Rehabilitation, Custodian, East Punjab, Displaced Persons, Rule 14, Fundamental Rights.

B) CASE DETAILS

i) Judgement Cause Title
Dunichand Hakim and Others v. Deputy Commissioner (Deputy Custodian Evacuee Property), Karnal, State of Punjab and Others

ii) Case Number
Petition No. 324 of 1953

iii) Judgement Date
18 December 1953

iv) Court
Supreme Court of India

v) Quorum
Chief Justice Patanjali Sastri, Justices S.R. Das, Vivian Bose, Ghulam Hasan, and Jagannadhadas

vi) Author
Justice Ghulam Hasan

vii) Citation
AIR 1954 SC 139; [1954] SCR 578

viii) Legal Provisions Involved

• Article 32 and Article 19(1)(f) of the Constitution of India

• East Punjab Evacuees (Administration of Property) Act, 1947

• Administration of Evacuee Property Act, 1950, particularly Sections 2(a), 12(1), and 56(2)

• East Punjab Refugees (Registration of Land Claims) Act, 1948

• Rule 14 of the Rules under the 1950 Act

ix) Judgments Overruled by the Case
None

x) Case is Related to which Law Subjects
Constitutional Law, Administrative Law, Property Law, Refugee and Rehabilitation Law

C) INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND OF JUDGEMENT

Post-partition India witnessed large-scale migrations, leading to an acute need to resettle displaced persons from Pakistan. The East Punjab Government introduced temporary and later quasi-permanent allotments of lands vacated by Muslim evacuees to incoming refugees. The policy culminated in a structured scheme governed by various enactments, including the East Punjab Evacuees (Administration of Property) Act, 1947, and later the Administration of Evacuee Property Act, 1950. Displaced persons were allotted land equivalent to the value of land left behind, pending resolution of India-Pakistan disputes over evacuee property. However, this quasi-permanent nature allowed administrative reconsideration of allotments.

The petitioners, who had been allotted land under this framework, faced cancellation when authorities downgraded the grade of land they had originally owned in Pakistan. This prompted a constitutional challenge under Article 32, alleging violation of Article 19(1)(f), the right to hold property.

D) FACTS OF THE CASE

Twenty petitioners, displaced from Pakistan during partition, claimed ownership over fertile, irrigated land in Lahore’s Chunian Tehsil. The East Punjab authorities settled them in Village Dhakala, Tehsil Thanesar, Karnal District. Their claims were verified under the East Punjab Refugees (Registration of Land Claims) Act, 1948, and they received first-grade land on a quasi-permanent basis under Notifications Nos. 4891/S and 4892/S dated 8 July 1949.

In 1951, following a reassessment of their original holdings, their land was reclassified as second-grade. The Custodian reallocated their land to Ishar Singh and others. The petitioners filed a writ under Article 226 in the Punjab High Court, which they later withdrew. The Deputy Custodian formally cancelled their allotments on 1 July 1952. They challenged this cancellation, alleging it lacked jurisdiction and due process. The Deputy Custodian General dismissed their revision, confirming the cancellation’s legality.

E) LEGAL ISSUES RAISED

i. Whether the Deputy Custodian had jurisdiction under the Acts of 1947 and 1950 to cancel allotments.
ii. Whether cancellation without a formal statutory notice violated principles of natural justice.
iii. Whether quasi-permanent allotments gave rise to enforceable property rights under Article 19(1)(f).
iv. Whether administrative circulars like the Ministry’s letter dated 14 May 1953 had statutory effect.
v. Whether cancellation orders breached any fundamental rights under the Constitution.

F) PETITIONER/ APPELLANT’S ARGUMENTS

i. The counsels for Petitioners / Appellants submitted that the land allotted to them had been legally allotted under the rehabilitation scheme and governed by the statement of conditions notified under Notifications 4891/S and 4892/S. They relied on Paragraph 8 of the statement of conditions, which provided that an allottee observing the conditions shall “peacefully hold and enjoy the allotted land during the said term without any interruption by the Custodian or the Rehabilitation Authority.”[1]

They contended that the cancellation without serving formal notice infringed Article 19(1)(f), constituting an illegal deprivation of property. They asserted that even if quasi-permanent, the scheme intended uninterrupted possession till ownership disputes between India and Pakistan resolved. The counsel relied heavily on the Land Resettlement Manual authored by Tirlok Singh, with a foreword by P.N. Thapar, to substantiate the legitimacy and structured nature of quasi-permanent allotments.

G) RESPONDENT’S ARGUMENTS

i. The counsels for Respondents submitted that both the 1947 and 1950 Acts clearly empowered the Deputy Custodian to cancel allotments under Section 9A of the 1947 Act and Section 12(1) of the 1950 Act. They pointed to Rule 14(2) which, though requiring notice for cancellation of leases, did not mandate notice for cancellation of allotments, as the allotments were inherently temporary and conditional in nature.

They emphasized that petitioners had full opportunity to present their case. On 9 May 1952, they were served notices and conceded that their Pakistan land was of second grade. The Assistant Custodian recorded their statements and submitted a report, upon which the Deputy Custodian cancelled the allotment. Hence, the principles of natural justice were not violated.

H) RELATED LEGAL PROVISIONS

i. Section 12(1) of the Administration of Evacuee Property Act, 1950 empowered Custodians to cancel allotments for good cause.
ii. Section 56(2) of the 1950 Act allowed the Central Government to make rules for eviction, variation, and cancellation of leases or allotments.
iii. Rule 14(3) & (4) provided for notice in lease cases, but not for general allotments.
iv. Article 32 invoked for enforcement of fundamental rights.
v. Article 19(1)(f) of the Constitution guaranteed right to property (since repealed by 44th Amendment Act, 1978).

H) JUDGEMENT

a. RATIO DECIDENDI

i. The Supreme Court held that the Deputy Custodian had jurisdiction under both the 1947 and 1950 Acts to cancel allotments. The definition of allotment under Section 2(a) indicated a temporary grant of use and occupation, not permanent proprietary rights. The Court noted that no notice was required under the rules for cancellation of allotments, only for leases.

The Court further noted that petitioners were given full opportunity to explain their position before the Assistant Custodian, who recorded their admission of second-grade holdings. Hence, there was no violation of natural justice. Additionally, the instructions dated 14 May 1953 were mere interim policy communications without statutory force, and could not invalidate actions previously taken under law.

b. OBITER DICTA 

i. The Court commented on the non-finality of quasi-permanent allotments, stating that such arrangements were provisional pending resolution of the evacuee property issue between India and Pakistan. The term “quasi-permanent” itself implied no proprietary rights and could not be equated with irrevocable settlement.

c. GUIDELINES 

• Custodians can cancel allotments if allottee obtained land based on misrepresentation.

• Rule 14 requires notice only in lease cases, not in allotment cancellations.

• Administrative circulars without statutory backing cannot override legislative enactments.

I) CONCLUSION & COMMENTS

This judgment reinforced the supremacy of statutory mandates over administrative directions in matters involving evacuee property management. It clarified that quasi-permanent allotments are not absolute, and administrative authorities retain the power to rectify excess or undeserved allotments even without notice, provided there is substantial compliance with the rule of hearing. This ruling played a crucial role in stabilizing the post-Partition land rehabilitation process while upholding administrative efficiency and legal certainty.

J) REFERENCES

a. Important Statutes Referred
[1] Administration of Evacuee Property Act, 1950, Sections 2(a), 12(1), 56(2)
[2] East Punjab Evacuees (Administration of Property) Act, 1947, Section 9A, 22(2)(ff)
[3] East Punjab Refugees (Registration of Land Claims) Act, 1948
[4] Constitution of India, Articles 19(1)(f) and 32
[5] Rules under Administration of Evacuee Property Act, especially Rule 14