BIHARI LAL BATRA versus THE CHIEF SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER & ORS

BIHARI LAL BATRA versus THE CHIEF SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER & ORS

Because the land was urban on the date of allotment and the rules operated prospectively, the allotment to the appellant was invalid under Rule 2(h). Rule 2(h) is not violative of Article 14 merely for creating a prospective distinction, and the challenge to its constitutional validity fails.

Parties
Appellant: Bihari Lal Batra; Respondents: Chief Settlement Commissioner & Ors.; Respondent: Respondent No. 4; Respondent: Respondent No. 5
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
12 March 1964
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Judgment and Order of the Punjab High Court Dismissing Writ Petition Under Arts. 226 and 227, Certificate of Fitness Under Art. 133
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs.
Legal Topics
Evacuee Property, Allotment of Land, Quasi Permanent Tenure, Rulemaking Power, Urban Area Under DPCR Rules, Article 14 of Constitution
Constitutional Law Property Law Administrative Law Evacuee Property Allotment of Land Quasi Permanent Tenure Rulemaking Power Urban Area Under DPCR Rules +1 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Bihari Lal Batra

Appellant

Chief Settlement Commissioner & Ors.

Respondents

Respondent No. 4

Respondent

Respondent No. 5

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Judgment and Order of the Punjab High Court Dismissing Writ Petition Under Arts. 226 and 227, Certificate of Fitness Under Art. 133

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the allotment of urban land to the appellant (a refugee) was void under Rule 2(h) of the Displaced Persons Compensation and Rehabilitation Rules, 1955
  2. 2 Whether Rule 2(h) violates Article 14 of the Constitution

Ratio Decidendi

Because the land was urban on the date of allotment and the rules operated prospectively, the allotment to the appellant was invalid under Rule 2(h). Rule 2(h) is not violative of Article 14 merely for creating a prospective distinction, and the challenge to its constitutional validity fails.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • No merits in the appeal; appeal dismissed with costs.