A) ABSTRACT / HEADNOTE

This Supreme Court judgment in Amar Singh v. Custodian, Evacuee Property, Punjab (1957) decisively determined the nature of property rights in quasi-permanent allotments granted to displaced persons post-Partition. The petitioners, who were displaced landholders from West Punjab, were allotted evacuee agricultural land in East Punjab under a quasi-permanent allotment scheme. The subsequent cancellation of these allotments by the Custodian led the petitioners to invoke Article 32, alleging violation of their fundamental rights under Articles 19(1)(f), 31(1), and 31(2) of the Constitution. The Court held that the quasi-permanent allotment did not amount to “property” within the constitutional meaning, and thus, the cancellation did not constitute an infringement of fundamental rights. The ruling elaborates that the vesting of evacuee property in the Custodian is conditional, and the ownership remains technically with the evacuee until regularised by sanad. The judgment harmonises administrative necessity and constitutional guarantees in the context of massive post-Partition resettlement, reinforcing the legal limits of state-driven land redistribution under statutory mandates.

Keywords: Evacuee Property, Quasi-Permanent Allotment, Article 19(1)(f), Article 31, Sanad, Property Rights

B) CASE DETAILS

i) Judgement Cause Title:
Amar Singh v. Custodian, Evacuee Property, Punjab

ii) Case Number:
Petition No. 351 of 1954

iii) Judgement Date:
March 29, 1957

iv) Court:
Supreme Court of India

v) Quorum:
Justices Bhagwati, Jagannadhadas, Jaffer Imam, Govinda Menon, and J.L. Kapur

vi) Author:
Justice Jagannadhadas

vii) Citation:
AIR 1957 SC 599; 1957 SCR 801

viii) Legal Provisions Involved:
Articles 19(1)(f), 31(1), 31(2) and 32 of the Constitution of India;
Administration of Evacuee Property Act, 1950 (Act XXXI of 1950);
East Punjab Evacuees (Administration of Property) Act, 1947;
Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954

ix) Judgments overruled by the Case (if any):
Suraj Parkash Kapur v. State of Punjab, (1957) LIX P.L.R. 103 (disapproved)

x) Case is Related to which Law Subjects:
Constitutional Law, Property Law, Administrative Law, Refugee and Displacement Law, Land Resettlement Law

C) INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND OF JUDGEMENT

The judgment arises from a unique post-Partition challenge. Displaced persons from West Punjab who were allotted agricultural lands left behind by Muslims who migrated to Pakistan contended that quasi-permanent allotments gave them enforceable property rights. The background involved mass exodus and administrative measures to rehabilitate over 5 million migrants, creating acute land pressure. The State provided these lands under provisional schemes which later faced administrative revisions. The petitioners alleged that their quasi-permanent allotments were unlawfully cancelled, breaching fundamental rights. The State defended its position under the evacuee laws, emphasizing that ownership remained with the evacuee until transfer by sanad. The Court had to evaluate whether such rights qualified as “property” under the Constitution and whether administrative cancellation of such allotments was legally permissible.

D) FACTS OF THE CASE

The petitioners were five displaced landholders from West Punjab. They originally held land in Pakistan’s Chak No. 159-RB, Tehsil Jaranwala, District Lyallpur, and shared ownership in Sultanwind village land in Amritsar, East Punjab. Post-displacement, the Custodian temporarily allotted 38 standard acres and 13 units of suburban land to them in 1949. This allotment came under the scheme known as quasi-permanent allotment. In 1951, the Custodian decided to reallocate land in Sultanwind to other groups, including Provincial Garden allottees, requiring re-adjustment. On July 31, 1951, the Deputy Custodian proposed to cancel the petitioners’ allotments, which the Custodian approved on February 6, 1952, without notice to them. Their revision petitions were dismissed by the Deputy Custodian-General on May 1, 1954. They approached the Supreme Court under Article 32, asserting violations of Articles 19(1)(f), 31(1), and 31(2) regarding their fundamental rights to property.

E) LEGAL ISSUES RAISED

i) Whether the quasi-permanent allotment created enforceable property rights under Articles 19(1)(f), 31(1), and 31(2) of the Constitution of India.
ii) Whether the Custodian’s cancellation of such allotments violated the petitioners’ fundamental rights.
iii) Whether the Administration of Evacuee Property Act authorized such cancellations lawfully.

F) PETITIONER/ APPELLANT’S ARGUMENTS

i) The counsels for Petitioner / Appellant submitted that the quasi-permanent allotment amounted to more than mere temporary possession. They argued that it conferred enforceable interests that qualified as “property” under Article 19(1)(f) of the Constitution. The petitioners also claimed that Article 31(1) protected against deprivation of property without authority of law and that the cancellation amounted to such deprivation. They invoked Article 31(2), asserting that the taking of land required compensation and due process. They relied on judicial pronouncements suggesting expansive interpretations of “property”, including Julius v. Lord Bishop of Oxford [(1880) 5 AC 214] to show that discretionary powers must be exercised reasonably. They further asserted that the cancellation without notice violated principles of natural justice.

G) RESPONDENT’S ARGUMENTS

i) The counsels for Respondent submitted that the allotments were provisional and liable to cancellation per statutory authority. The Custodian acted under powers conferred by Section 12 of the Administration of Evacuee Property Act, 1950, which allows cancellation in administrative interest. The respondents contended that until issuance of a sanad under Rule 72 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Rules, 1955, no permanent rights arose. They emphasized that the evacuee still retained ownership of the property and that the petitioners’ rights were akin to licenses. They cited that the allotment scheme was designed for administrative flexibility and not intended to grant constitutionally protected interests.

H) RELATED LEGAL PROVISIONS

i) Constitution of India

• Article 19(1)(f) – Right to acquire, hold and dispose of property

• Article 31(1) – No person shall be deprived of his property save by authority of law

• Article 31(2) – Prohibition on compulsory acquisition without compensation

• Article 32 – Right to Constitutional remedies

ii) Statutory Provisions

• Section 12 of the Administration of Evacuee Property Act, 1950 – Power of cancellation

• Section 27 – Revision before Custodian-General

• Rule 72 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Rules, 1955 – Grant of sanad

I) JUDGEMENT

a. RATIO DECIDENDI

i) The Court held that quasi-permanent allotments do not amount to constitutionally protected property. The property remained vested in the Custodian and was subject to resumption. The petitioners had no right to transfer, mortgage, or alienate the land, and thus lacked dominion indicative of property under Article 19(1)(f). The cancellation was not a deprivation under Article 31(1) as it was under lawful authority. Nor was it an acquisition under Article 31(2), since the interest held was not ownership. The Court emphasized the provisional and administrative nature of the allotment scheme. It also disapproved the decision in Suraj Parkash Kapur v. State of Punjab, (1957) LIX P.L.R. 103, for incorrectly treating such allotments as constitutionally protected property.

b. OBITER DICTA 

i) The Court remarked that although quasi-permanent allotments do not enjoy fundamental rights protection, they remain crucial for displaced persons’ rehabilitation. Authorities must safeguard these interests within the framework of statutory rules. Abuse of administrative power or arbitrary cancellations can be challenged via judicial review or appropriate proceedings.

c. GUIDELINES 

• Interests from quasi-permanent allotments are administrative rights, not constitutionally protected property.

• Sanads issued under Rule 72 create actual property rights.

• Displaced persons’ rights must be respected per administrative rules, though they fall short of constitutional protection.

• Authorities must act fairly, even if the interests are not fundamental rights.

J) CONCLUSION & COMMENTS

This decision delineates the constitutional boundary between provisional administrative entitlements and legal property. The Court rightfully balanced the State’s obligation for orderly resettlement with individual claims by holding that quasi-permanent allotments lacked characteristics of property under the Constitution. At the same time, it ensured administrative accountability, recognizing that displaced persons deserved fairness in treatment. It left the door open for judicial scrutiny in cases of arbitrary or malicious action. The judgment remains critical in understanding the limits of fundamental rights in emergency administrative frameworks post-Partition.

K) REFERENCES

a. Important Cases Referred
i. Julius v. Lord Bishop of Oxford, (1880) 5 A.C. 214
ii. Suraj Parkash Kapur v. State of Punjab, (1957) LIX P.L.R. 103 (disapproved)
iii. Dunichand Hakim v. Deputy Custodian, Karnal, [1954] SCR 578

b. Important Statutes Referred
i. Administration of Evacuee Property Act, 1950 (Act XXXI of 1950)
ii. Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954
iii. East Punjab Evacuees (Administration of Property) Act, 1947
iv. Displaced Persons Compensation and Rehabilitation Rules, 1955
v. Constitution of India – Articles 19(1)(f), 31(1), 31(2), 32