Citation Codes

Equivalent Citations

citation codes

Case Number

Letters Patent Appeals Nos. 211 to 214, 372 and 379 of 1963

Advocates

J.S. Chwal
H.S. Wasu
B.S. Wasu and H.L. Sarin and R.K Saini

Judges

S.S.Dulat
Harbans Singh

See more information ...

Smart Summary

Judgment Summary — Letters Patent Appeals (1963)

Factual and Procedural Background

This order disposes of six Letters Patent appeals filed under clause 10 (appeals Nos. 211–214, 372 and 379 of 1963) challenging the orders of learned Single Judges. Four appeals (211–214 of 1963) were against judgments of Shamsher Bahadur, J.; Letter Patent Appeal No. 372 of 1963 was against the judgment of Gurdev Singh, J. dismissing Civil Writ No. 1490 of 1961; and No. 379 of 1963 was against the judgment of Mahajan, J., which dismissed a petition on the ground that it was concluded by an earlier decision in Civil Writ No. 1647 of 1962. The principal point involved in all six appeals was common, though the facts of two of the appeals were slightly different from the other four.

One of the lead matters (Letters Patent Appeal No. 211 — Gulab Singh v. Chief Settlement Commissioner and others) involved a displaced person from Bahawalpur State who had been allotted agricultural land in India in lieu of land abandoned in Pakistan. Allotments were made under two notifications dated 8 July 1949: (a) No. 4892/S (quasi-permanent allotments where copies of jamabandis had been received from Pakistan), and (b) No. 4891/S (temporary allotments based on oral verification when jamabandis were not received). The appellant and three others received temporary allotments because their Pakistani records had not been received by the Department.

Subsequently, copies of jamabandis were received by the Department that showed the appellant to be entitled to a lesser area of 'nehri' land than was originally claimed. The Managing Officer (by order dated 26 September 1961) reduced the appellant's permanent entitlement and cancelled a balance of land. The appellant produced authenticated copies of jamabandis from Pakistan showing a larger area and succeeded on initial appeal before the Settlement Commissioner, which resulted in a remand for re-examination with those copies. On remand the Managing Officer and the Assistant Settlement Commissioner refused to accept those copies as determinative, relying on jamabandis for an earlier year (1946–47), and required that a purchase-price be deposited by the claimant as a condition precedent to a comparison at Wagha with original Pakistani records. The Chief Settlement Commissioner confirmed this approach and specified that the purchase price (calculated at departmental rates) had to be deposited before Wagha comparison could be effected, with a promise of refund only if the Wagha comparison proved favourable to the allottee.

Four writ petitions were filed challenging these departmental orders and the requirement to deposit the purchase price; the learned Single Judge dismissed the petitions on the ground that no legal right to a Wagha comparison had vested in the appellants and that the Department could impose conditions. These dismissals were challenged by the appeals before the court whose opinion is summarized here. Two additional appeals (Nos. 372 and 379 of 1963) raised similar questions; in those matters the Department had originally ordered Wagha comparison but later reviewed the direction and added the deposit requirement as a condition precedent.

Legal Issues Presented

Whether a displaced person (allottee) has a legal right to have an alleged discrepancy in jamabandi entries resolved by comparison with original Pakistani revenue records at Wagha, i.e., whether the Department is obliged to permit such a Wagha comparison when the claimant produces evidence suggesting the received copies are incorrect.
Whether the Rehabilitation Department may, as a condition precedent to effecting a Wagha comparison, require the claimant to deposit the purchase price of the area tentatively found in excess (calculated at departmental rates).
Whether departmental instructions (requiring deposit before Wagha comparison) have the force of law such that they can justify refusing to consider the best available evidence (original revenue records) unless the deposit is made.
Whether the Department has power to review its own earlier order directing Wagha comparison and to replace it with a subsequent order conditioning such comparison on deposit (the question of departmental power to review its own order, as addressed with reference to a Full Bench decision).

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

The allotments to displaced persons were made under statutory schemes (State Administration of Evacuee Property Act and later parliamentary provisions under Displaced Persons legislation) and were not mere ex gratia grants; therefore, displaced persons acquired legal rights which require fair procedures to determine true entitlement.
Once the case was fit for a Wagha comparison (i.e., there was a disputed discrepancy between departmental copies and documents produced by the claimant), it was unlawful and unjust for the Department to impose an onerous condition — deposit of a large amount (Rs. 18,500 in one instance) — before allowing the comparison.
The jamabandis produced by claimants (authenticated by the High Commissioner) were relevant evidence and, at minimum, entitled the claimants to a comparison with original Pakistani records; the Department's reliance on older jamabandis (1946–47) and refusal to accept jamabandis of 1947–48 or 1948–49 was not justified.
The departmental practice of requiring purchase-price deposits is merely departmental instruction without statutory force and cannot be used to prevent consideration of the best available evidence (original records) to resolve disputes.

Respondent / Department's Position and Single Judge's Approach

The Department and subordinate officers refused to act on the copies of jamabandis presented by the claimants on the ground that those copies were prepared after the khasra girdawari of Rabi 1947 and that departmental practice permitted benefit only on the basis of jamabandis for the year 1946–47 received from Pakistan.
The Department required the claimant to deposit the purchase-price for the area tentatively found to be in excess as a precondition for effecting Wagha comparison with original Pakistani records; the Chief Settlement Commissioner confirmed that under existing rules such deposit was to be made and would be refunded if the Wagha comparison proved favourable.
The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petitions inter alia on the ground that claimants had no legal right to demand Wagha comparison and that the Department could impose conditions for carrying out such comparison.

Table of Precedents Cited

Precedent	Rule or Principle Cited For	Application by the Court
Deep Chand v. Addl. Director, Consolidation of Holdings, Punjab (Full Bench) Dated 19-12-1963; (AIR 1964 Punj 249)	Principle that the Department has no power to review its own order (i.e., departmental review affecting an earlier direction to carry out Wagha comparison was not permissible).	The court observed that, in the two appeals where the Department had first directed Wagha comparison and later reviewed that order to add a deposit condition, the Full Bench decision supported the contention that the Department lacked power to review its own order; the court found this argument has force, though it did not decide the appeals solely on this ground because the appeals were accepted on other reasoning.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court proceeded through a structured legal analysis based on the statutory and administrative framework and the procedural manual governing resettlement of displaced persons:

Nature of allotments and evidentiary foundation:
The court noted that allotments to displaced persons were made by virtue of State and subsequently parliamentary legislation, and the resettlement operation was contemplated to confer rights of a permanent character. The departmental procedure (as described in the Land Resettlement Manual) set out methods of verification in order of precedence: (1) entries in jamabandi or other revenue records; (2) registered documents; (3) other documents of unquestionable genuineness; and (4) oral evidence of reliable persons. Thus jamabandis were important but expressly not the only evidence permissible.
Jamabandis are not infallible and not necessarily conclusive:
The court emphasised that entries in jamabandis provide prima facie evidence but cannot be the sole determinant. Mutations or registered transfers predating partition could supersede jamabandi entries; khasra girdawaris (field inspection records) may show cultivation or irrigation status that jamabandis would not reflect, and copies of Pakistani records supplied to the Department were not originals and were susceptible to errors given the haste in producing them.
Best available evidence is the original revenue records:
Where a displaced person disputes the correctness of the copies of jamabandis received by the Department, the court held that the best evidence to resolve discrepancies would be the original revenue records (including original jamabandis and khasra girdawaris). Although the displaced person could not be expected to produce original Pakistani records, the Department could obtain access to them for comparison at Wagha.
Departmental instructions cannot be used to deny consideration of best evidence:
The court rejected the Department's reliance on internal instructions (which conceded did not have the force of law) to refuse to examine the original records unless the claimant deposited the purchase-price of the tentatively excess land. The court reasoned that it was unjust to presume the claimant's case to be wrong and to mandate an onerous deposit before permitting the best available evidence to be considered.
Balance of convenience and consequences of the two approaches:
The court weighed the comparative hardships: if the Department proceeded with Wagha comparison and the claimant was ultimately found not entitled to the additional area, the Department could reclaim the land and recover damages for prior use and occupation. If, however, the claimant was forced to deposit the purchase-price up front and the Wagha comparison later vindicated his claim, the claimant would suffer by having a large sum locked up without compensation or interest because there was no rule for payment of damages or interest on deposits. Thus requiring deposit placed disproportionate and unfair burden on displaced persons while offering little or no reciprocal protection for them.
Conclusions drawn from the facts:
Given that claimants in these cases produced authenticated copies of jamabandis from Pakistan and there were legitimate questions about which year’s records accurately reflected the state of the land as on 15 August 1947 (the court observed that jamabandi for 1946–47 could not necessarily represent the condition on 15 August 1947 while jamabandis for 1947–48 might more closely reflect that date), the court concluded there was no legal justification for presuming the claimant wrong and imposing a deposit-precondition for Wagha comparison.
Application of precedent on departmental review:
For the two appeals in which the Department had initially ordered Wagha comparison and later reviewed that order to add a deposit condition, the court noted the Full Bench decision in Deep Chand indicating that the Department had no power to review its own order. The court acknowledged this point as persuasive but found it unnecessary to decide the appeals on that ground because the appeals were disposed of on the reasoning set out above.

Holding and Implications

Holding: The appeals are allowed. The court set aside the orders of the learned Single Judges and quashed the impugned departmental orders to the extent that they directed appellants to deposit the purchase-price of the additional land claimed as a condition precedent to effecting a Wagha comparison with original Pakistani revenue records. The appellants were awarded costs both in this Court and before the learned Single Judges.

Implications and immediate consequences:

The direct effect is that the departmental condition requiring displaced persons to deposit the purchase-price before permitting Wagha comparison is quashed in the matters before the court; claimants are entitled to have the disputed entries tested by comparison with the best available evidence (original revenue records) without being required to make the challenged deposit as a precondition.
The court observed that, in two appeals, a Full Bench decision (Deep Chand) indicated that the Department has no power to review its own earlier order to add such a condition, and the court found force in that contention; however, it did not rest its decision solely on that point because the primary analytical grounds (availability of best evidence and unfairness of the deposit requirement) were sufficient to dispose of the appeals.
The court awarded costs to the appellants. The judgment requires departmental practice to yield to fair access to original records for verification where claimants produce evidence suggesting departmental copies are incorrect.

Result: Appeals allowed.

Show full summary ...

Gulab Singh Pardhan Singh v. Chief Settlement Commissioner And Ors.

Judgement

This order will dispose of six appeals filed under clause 10 of the fitters Patent against the orders of learned Single Judges Out of these four appeals Nos. 211 to 214 of 1963 are against the judgments of Shamsher Bahadur J. and the facts therein are identical Letters Patent Appeal No. 372 of 1963 is against the judgment of Gurdev Singh, J. dismissing Civil Writ No. 1490 of 1961. Letters Patent Appeal No. 379 of 1963 is against the judgment of Mahajan, J., who dismissed the same on the short ground that the same was concluded by the decision of this Court in Civil Writ No. 1647 of 1962. The facts of these two appeals are slightly different but the main point involved in all these six appeals is the same.

2. With regard to the Letters Patent Appeals Nos. 211 to 214 if would be sufficient to give the facts in the Letters Patent Appeal No. 211 Gulab Singh v. Chief Settlement Commissioner and others Gulab Singh like the other three appellants in the connected appeals, is a displaced person from Bahawalpur State, where he owned agricultural land in Chak No. 4, Roshan Bet and Kol Mehtab, Tahsil Sadaqabad, District Rahim-yar-Khan. In lieu of the land so abandoned by him, he put in a claim and was allotted 31 standard acres and 61/2 units of land in village Sherpur, Tehsil Samrala. It may be mentioned here that allotments of agricultural land were made to displaced persons in Punjab under two notifications. The allotments made under notification No. 4892/S, dated 8th of July, 1949, were known as quasi-permanent allotments; and these were given to those displaced persons in respect of whom copies of jamabandis had been received from Pakistan authorities in pursuance of an agreement between the two dominions to exchange such records. The other displaced persons, jamabandis in respect of whom had not been so received, were allotted land on oral verification and such allotments were made under notification No. 4891/S, dated 8th of July, 1949, and these were known as temporary allotments, which were to be made quasi-permanent or subsequently converted into full proprietary rights on receipt of records from West Pakistan or on production of some other proof. Gulab Singh and the other three appellants were given only temporary allotments because the records from Bhawalpur had not been received. It appears that subsequently copies of the jamabandis of the villages concerned were received by the Department and according to the entries therein out of the area shown in the name of the appellant, less area was shown as nehri than in the original claim put in by him, and on the basis of which the allotment was made to him. By his order dated the 26th of September, 1961, the Managing Officer, calculating the area to which the appellant was entitled on the basis of the jamabandi so received, made 16 standard acres and 5½ units of land as permanent and cancelled the balance to the extent of 15 standard acres and 1 unit. It appears that the appellant, thereafter, made an effort and brought from Pakistan copies of the jamabandis of the villages duly authenticated by the High Commissioner for India in Pakistan and these copies showed more area as nehri than was indicated in the jamabandis said to have been received by the Department. On the basis of these documents an appeal filed by the appellant before the Settlement Commissioner against the order of the Managing Officer was accepted and the case was remanded to be re-examined in the light of the copies of the jamabandis with the appellant.

3. On remand, the Managing Officer, while rejecting the claim did not rely on the copies of the jamabandis produced on behalf of the petitioner. The grounds would be clear from the following extract from his order Annexure-A :

"Copy of the jamabandi of Chak No. 4 has bean examined. This copy is of jamabandi for 1948-49 duly attested by the High Commissioner on 20th October. 1961. Copy of the jamabandi of village Kot Mehtab Tehsil Sadaqabad attested by the High Commissioner on 20th October, 1961, relates to the year 1947-48. Both these copies cannot be acted upon because the Rehabilitation Department can give benefit of the area of the allottee on the basis of jamabandi for the year 1946-47 received from Pakistan. Both the aforesaid copies were prepared after the girdawari of Rabi 1947"

On appeal to the Assistant Settlement Commissioner, he (vide his order in Annexure-B dated the 6th of August, 1962) also observed to the same effect as follows :-

"The copy of the. jamabandi produced for the year 1947-48 contains the entries of the crops for kharif 1947 and rabi 1948 and the kind of soil entered in it does not necessarily prove that all the land was nehri before partition"

4. The difficulty that has arisen by different entries in the jamabandis received by the Department and those produced by the petitioners could properly be resolved by comparison at Wagha with the original records of khasra girdawari in Pakistan for kharif 1946 and rabi 1947 However, as a condition precedent for this it was ordered by the Deptt. that the petitioner should deposit price of the area which had tentatively been found to be in excess in accordance with the jamabandis received by the Rehabilitation Department, and the request of the petitioner that the case should be listed for comparison without such deposit, was repelled on the ground that instructions of the Department were to the contrary

On the matter being taken to the Chief Settlement Commissioner, this view of the Subordinate officers was confirmed. He also stated

". . . . we are to take the class of land as it existed in Rabi, 1947. These jamabandis show the Class of land as it existed in rabi 1948 and kharif 1948. As such no reliance can be placed on the copies. Under the rules, the Wagha comparison can be effected provided the petitioner purchases the excess that has been found according to the prescribed rates which amount, according to rules, is to be refunded if the Wagha comparison report is found favourable for the allottee."

As mentioned in the order of the Managing Officer, the purchase-price is to be calculated at the rate of Rs. 800/- per standard acre for the first two standard acres, Rs. 1000/ per standard acre for the next three standard acres, Rs. 1250/ per standard acre for the next five standard acres, and Rs. 1500/- per standard acre for the remaining five standard acres.

5. Against these orders of the Chief Settlement Commissioner, four writ petitions were filed. Inter alia it was urged that once it was admitted that it was a case fit for comparison at Wagha, the imposition of the onerous condition that the petitioner must first deposit a huge amount of Rs. 18500/-, calculated at the above rates for 15 standard acres and 1 unit, tentatively found in excess, was not warranted by law, and was a condition which virtually deprived the petitioner appellant of his right to property. It was further urged that the two jamabandis produced indicate the nature of the land as it existed for some period prior to the final preparation of the jamabandis and, therefore, reflect the true state of affairs us they existed at the time of the partition. The learned Single Judge dismissed the petition on the ground that there was no legal right vested in the appellant to have the "Wagha comparison" done and, consequently, there was nothing wrong in the Department imposing any conditions for carrying out such a comparison. This judgment is being challenged in the four appeals, mentioned above.

6. The learned counsel for the appellant urged before us that the Department as well as the learned Single Judge have not approached the case from a proper angle. He urged that the allotments made to the displaced persons in lieu of the land abandoned by them in the area now in Pakistan, were made in pursuance of an Act of the Punjab Legislature and notification by the State Government under the Administration of Evacuee Property Act. Subsequently, these rights were altered to permanent proprietary rights by virtue of an Act of Parliament (Displaced Persons). Such allotments cannot, therefore, be treated as a mere ex gratia gifts being made by the department. The displaced persons, who held land either as owners or occupancy tenants etc., in the area now in Pakistan were invited to submit their claims in respect of the land abandoned by them. Such displaced persons were desired to be settled on the land abandoned by the Muslim evacuees. In paragraph 19 of Chapter I at page 8 of the Land Resettlement Manual by Tarlok Singh (hereinafter to be referred to as the Manual), it is stated as follows :-

"The resettlement of land in East Punjab and Pepsu was envisaged as an operation likely to confer in due course rights of a permanent character."

For this, an elaborate procedure was evolved by which the claims submitted by the displaced persons were to be checked up and the total area abandoned by them together with the quality of the land etc., was to be determined in the first instance. The total area abandoned was converted in terms of standard acres, which in turn depended on the quality of the abandoned land and its productivity. After imposing certain cuts - because the evacuee land available for allotment was not sufficient to meet the claims of the displaced persons in full - the displaced persons were allotted land in proportion to the land found abandoned by the displaced persons.

7. As mentioned in paragraph 11 of Chapter II at pages 34-35 of the Manual, the claims submitted by the displaced persons were to be verified in one or more of the methods given below in the order of precedence :-

(1) Entries in the jamabandi or other revenue record; or

(2) entries and references in any registered document;

(3) entries or references in other documents of unquestionable genuineness; and

(4) oral evidence of reliable persons present at the verification.

Thus, no hard and fast rules were laid down that jamabandis alone will be taken into consideration for verifying the correctness or otherwise of the claims submitted by displaced persons. The obvious reason was that at that time there was no certainty that copies of the records left in Pakistan would be available. The circumstances and the suddenness in which the migration of the population had taken place, made it impossible for the majority of the displaced persons to bring documentary evidence with them. However, later on, by an agreement between the two Dominions copies of jamabandis and other documents were exchanged between the two Governments and the bulk of claims of displaced persons were assessed on the basis of the entries in the copies of the jamabandis received from West Pakistan Government, and the allotments of such persons were made on quasi-permanent basis, while with regard to others the allotments were made in the form of leases or what were called temporary allotments. It is, however, common ground that the idea was to determine the extent and value of the land abandoned by a displaced person as on the date of the partition, and, inter alia, even copies of the loose mutations entered before 15th of August. 1947 - whether decided or pending - were also exchanged between the two dominions (See page 48 of the Manual). The main idea behind all this was that the Department wanted to verify the claims made by the displaced persons by getting copies of the revenue records from the other Dominion or by scrutinising other relevant documentary or oral evidence that may be available.

8. It is thus clear that the foundation of the claim, on the basis of which land is allotted to a displaced person, is the ownership of land by him in Pakistan as on the date of the partition Entries in the jamabandis, prima facie, provide an important piece of evidence of the extent of such ownership. However, entries in the jamahandis cannot be taken to be the only proof of this fact and the departmental instructions and procedure, as reproduced above, recognised this. For example, mutations entered, and the transfer deeds registered prior to the date of the partition but after the date to which the jamabandis relate, would certainly supersede any entries qua the ownership in the jamabandis to the contrary. Similarly entries in the khasra girdawaris would also take precedence over the jamabandis entries as regards the question whether the land was under cultivation or received irrigation at the date of the partition. If, for example, a jamabandi relates to the year 1945 and a well was sunk in 1946, in the Khasra girwawari the land which is commanded by the well would be mentioned as chahi although there can not possibly be any mention of such a fact in the jamabandi. Furthermore, the Rehabilitation Department obtained from Pakistan not the original records but copies prepared from the same and the chances of mistakes creeping in such copies are fairly great taking into consideration the great speed with which this stupendous task had to be finished.

9. Where a displaced person, therefore, disputes the correctness of the entries in the copies of the jamabandis received, it is only fair that his claim should be checked from the best evidence that may be available. Where as in the cases before us, a displaced person does not claim any right under any subsequent deed or transaction but merely suggests that the entries in the copies received are wrong either qua the area actually owned by him or qua the quality of the land the best evidence would be the entries in the original revenue records. Such evidence cannot be produced by the displaced person but the same can be made readily available to the department. Best evidence being thus available to the Department, the Department would not be justified, under the cloak of departmental instructions which, it was fairly conceded, have no force of law, to refuse to look at the same unless the claimant performs the onerous condition of depositing the purchase price for the area of the land to which the cliamant considered himself to be entitled. These proceedings before the Rehabilitation Department are obviously not in the nature of a suit filed by the displaced person where the burden of proving his claim would be on him. As already indicated under the law promulgated by the State Legislature and then by the Parliament, a displaced person is entitled to the allotment of land in lieu of that abandoned by him and all rules of procedure have been laid down with a view to achieve that end and it is only fair that all possible evidence that may either be made available by the displaced person or that is available to the department should be looked at before turning down the claim of the displaced person particularly when, on preliminary verification, the same has been accepted and he has been in possession of the land for a number of years and. in all probability, effected improvements therein.

10. It is further to be seen that the balance of convenience is also in favour of this procedure to be adopted. In case, after comparison with the original records, the claim of the displaced person is not found to be correct, the department suffers no loss. The land can be taken back unless paid for at the rates fixed by the Department, and for the entire prior period during which he had been in possession of the additional area of land to which he was not in fact entitled, he is bound to pay damages for its use and occupation as determined by the Department in accordance with the rules. On the other hand, if the displaced person is made to deposit the price, then apart from the difficulty that he is bound to face in collecting such a huge amount, he will get no compensation for this money being locked up with the Department till the Verification is made, if ultimately his claim is found to be justified. There is no rule For the Department paying any damages or paying any interest on the amount of money deposited with it. Thus, whereas the procedure that is sought to be followed by the Department in view of the so-called instructions, works very great hardship on the displaced person there is no corresponding hardship on the Department in comparing the entries with the original records in case of doubt.

11. In the cases before us the claimants even have taken the trouble of bringing from Pakistan copies of the jamabandis for the year 1947-48 in one case and 1948-49 in the other duly authenticated by the High Commissioner for India. It was further urged that the Department was wrong in placing reliance on the jamabandis for the year 1946-47 in order to determine the condition of the land as it stood on 15th of August, 1947, and not placing reliance for the same on the jamabandis for the year 1947-48. Obviously jamabandis for the year 1946-47 cannot at best represent the state of the land as it was up to kharif 1946 and rabi 1947. Khasra Girdwari for rabi 1947 would be done in the month of March. Therefore, it is not correct to say that jamabandi for 1946-47 does necessarily represent the condition of the land as on 15th of August, 1947. On that day kharif harvest of 1947 would be standing on the lands and there is greater likelihood of the correct state of affairs as on 15th of August, 1947 being represented in the jamabandi of 1947-48. In any case, it is not necessary to elaborate this point because possibly the real state of affairs can be best gathered by looking at the original revenue records including jamabandis and khasra girdawaris etc.

12. In view of the above, therefore, we are definitely of the opinion that there is no legal justification whatever for the Department presuming that the claim made by the displaced person is wrong and asking him to deposit the price of the additional land claimed by him, before taking into consideration the evidence that may be made available by having the so-called "Wagha comparison" with the original records. These appeals are, consequently, accepted, the orders of the learned Single Judge set aside and the impugned orders are quashed to the extent to which they direct the appellants to deposit the price of the additional land claimed. The appellants will have their costs against the Department here as well as before the learned Single Judge.

13. The other two appeals raise similar points. There is one additional feature which makes the cases of the appellants in those appeals still stronger in both these appeals Nos. 372 and 379 of 1963 the Department had originally directed comparison with the original revenue records to be made at the Wagha border Subsequently this order was reviewed and deposit of purchase price was added as a condition precedent. In view of the Full Bench decision of this Court in C W No. 1302 of 1961 Deep Chand v. Addl. Director, Consolidation of Holdings, Punjab. D/-19-12-1963 : (AIR 1964 Punj 249) (FB) the Department has no power to review its own order and on this ground; too, the subsequent order cannot stand. There appears to be force in this contention but it is not necessary to go into it because the appeals have to be accepted in view of the discussion relating to the above-mentioned four appeals. These two appeals are also accepted, the orders of the learned Single Judges set aside and the impugned orders directing the deposit of the money quashed. The appellants will have their costs in this Court as well as before the learned Single Judge.

Appeals allowed.

Gulab Singh Pardhan Singh v. Chief Settlement Commissioner And Ors.

Judgment Summary — Letters Patent Appeals (1963)

Factual and Procedural Background

Legal Issues Presented

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

Respondent / Department's Position and Single Judge's Approach

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

Holding and Implications

Gulab Singh Pardhan Singh v. Chief Settlement Commissioner And Ors.

Comments