AMAR SINGH versus CUSTODIAN, EVACUEE PROPERTY, PUNJAB

AMAR SINGH versus CUSTODIAN, EVACUEE PROPERTY, PUNJAB

The Supreme Court held that the interest of a quasi-permanent allottee is not property within the constitutional meaning, and cancellation in accordance with statutory powers does not violate fundamental rights under Articles 19(1)(f), 31(1), or 31(2) of the Constitution.

Parties
Petitioner: Amar Singh and four others; Respondent: Custodian, Evacuee Property, Punjab; Intervener: S. L. Pandhi
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
29 March 1957
Procedural Posture
Petition Under Article 32 of the Constitution / Judgment
Outcome
Petition dismissed
Legal Topics
Evacuee Property, Quasi Permanent Allotment, Fundamental Rights, Cancellation of Allotment
Constitutional Law Property Law Evacuee Property Quasi Permanent Allotment Fundamental Rights Cancellation of Allotment

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 4 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Amar Singh and four others

Petitioner

Custodian, Evacuee Property, Punjab

Respondent

S. L. Pandhi

Intervener

Procedural Posture

Petition Under Article 32 of the Constitution / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the rights of a quasi-permanent allottee constitute 'property' within the meaning of Articles 19(1)(f), 31(1), and 31(2) of the Constitution
  2. 2 Whether cancellation of a quasi-permanent allotment violates fundamental rights to property under the Constitution

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court held that the interest of a quasi-permanent allottee is not property within the constitutional meaning, and cancellation in accordance with statutory powers does not violate fundamental rights under Articles 19(1)(f), 31(1), or 31(2) of the Constitution.

Court Disposition

Petition dismissed

Orders

  • Petition dismissed without costs