Supreme Court Rejects Land Claim of Displaced Person in Telangana

The Supreme Court of India, in the case of Ramesh Parsram Malani & Ors. v. The State of Telangana & Ors., upheld the decision of the High Court, ruling against the petitioners who sought additional land allotment as displaced persons from Pakistan after the partition of India. The case revolved around the legality of an order issued by the Chief Commissioner of Land Administration (CCLA) of Andhra Pradesh on February 26, 2003, which allotted 19.26 standard acres of land in Village Poppalguda, District Ranga Reddy, to the appellant.

Background of the Case

The appellant, Ramesh Parsram Malani, claimed that his father, a displaced person from Sindh (now in Pakistan), had originally owned 83.11 acres of land in Sindh. After partition, he had applied for compensation in India. The father of the appellant was allotted 40.4 standard acres of land in Hyderabad East and Hyderabad West before the enactment of the Displaced Persons (Compensation & Rehabilitation) Act, 1954. The land allotment was later regularized in 1956.

However, no further claim was made by the appellant’s father for additional land until his death in 1988. In 2001, the appellant filed an application seeking 43.7 additional standard acres of land, claiming it was the remaining portion of his verified claim. The Chief Commissioner of Land Administration (CCLA) of Andhra Pradesh allotted 19.26 standard acres of land in 2003, which was later challenged by the State Government.

Arguments by the Petitioner (Ramesh Parsram Malani)

The petitioner argued that:

• His father had a verified claim for 83.11 acres but was allotted only 40.4 acres, leaving a balance of 43.7 acres to be compensated.
• The Displaced Persons Act and its rules do not impose any time limit for seeking additional land allotment.
• The right of a displaced person to receive equivalent land to compensate for property left in Pakistan was a statutory obligation of the Central Government.
• The CCLA had validly exercised its authority in granting 19.26 acres of land in 2003.

Arguments by the Respondents (State of Telangana & Others)

The respondents countered the claims, stating:

• The CCLA was not authorized to allot land, as the power of land management had been transferred to the State Government in 1980.
• The land claimed by the petitioner was already transferred to the State Government in June 1980 under a Government of India notification.
• The petitioner’s father never raised a claim for additional land during his lifetime, and the claim was delayed by nearly two decades.
• The land previously allotted had already been sold by the displaced person, indicating that he had accepted the compensation.
• The High Court correctly ruled that the claim suffered from delay and laches, and that the land was no longer available under the compensation pool.

Supreme Court’s Observations

A bench comprising Justices L. Nageswara Rao and Hemant Gupta ruled against the appellant, making the following key observations:

• The CCLA was not competent to make land allotments in 2003, as the power had already been transferred to the State Government.
• The land forming part of the compensation pool had been transferred to the State Government in 1980, meaning it was no longer under the jurisdiction of the Central Government for allotment.
• The appellant had waited more than 13 years after his father’s death to file a claim, and his father had never contested the original allotment in his lifetime.
• Under Rule 51 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation & Rehabilitation) Rules, 1955, the maximum land allotment for a verified claim of 83.11 acres was 45.8¾ acres, meaning the appellant’s father had already received most of his entitled land.
• The appellant’s reliance on Rule 52 to argue that additional land should be allotted over time was misplaced, as the original allotment in 1954 had already been finalized.

The Court stated:

“The appellant cannot be permitted to agitate the issues which have attained finality. Rule 86 of the Rules is not a perennial source of allotment by the successor-in-interest but operates in respect of a successor-in-interest of a displaced person who had not filed a claim during his lifetime.”

Final Judgment

The Supreme Court upheld the High Court’s ruling and issued the following directives:

• The appeal was dismissed as being without merit.
• The land allotment granted by the CCLA in 2003 was declared invalid.
• The petitioner’s claim for additional land was rejected on grounds of delay, lack of jurisdiction, and the exhaustion of compensation rights.

Implications of the Judgment

The ruling has significant implications for displaced persons’ land claims and government land administration:

• Finality of Compensation Claims: Displaced persons cannot continue to raise additional claims decades after their initial allotments.
• State Control Over Land: The ruling reaffirms that land transferred to state governments cannot be later claimed under the Central Government’s compensation schemes.
• Jurisdictional Clarity: Authorities such as the CCLA cannot make land allotments once powers have been delegated to the State Government.
• Prevention of Misuse: The judgment helps prevent attempts to revive long-settled land disputes under the guise of compensation claims.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s decision in Ramesh Parsram Malani & Ors. v. The State of Telangana & Ors. settles a crucial issue regarding the finality of displaced persons’ land claims. The ruling makes it clear that once compensation has been awarded and accepted, successors cannot claim additional land decades later. Furthermore, it reinforces the authority of state governments over transferred land, ensuring that jurisdictional boundaries are respected. This decision upholds the principles of legal certainty and administrative efficiency in handling post-partition rehabilitation claims.

Petitioner Name: Ramesh Parsram Malani & Ors..
Respondent Name: The State of Telangana & Ors..
Judgment By: Justice L. Nageswara Rao, Justice Hemant Gupta.
Place Of Incident: Telangana.
Judgment Date: 22-10-2019.

Don’t miss out on the full details! Download the complete judgment in PDF format below and gain valuable insights instantly!

Download Judgment: Ramesh Parsram Malan vs The State of Telanga Supreme Court of India Judgment Dated 22-10-2019.pdf

Direct Downlaod Judgment: Direct downlaod this Judgment

See all petitions in Property Disputes
See all petitions in Succession and Wills
See all petitions in Landlord-Tenant Disputes
See all petitions in Judgment by L. Nageswara Rao
See all petitions in Judgment by Hemant Gupta
See all petitions in dismissed
See all petitions in Quashed
See all petitions in supreme court of India judgments October 2019
See all petitions in 2019 judgments

See all posts in Civil Cases Category
See all allowed petitions in Civil Cases Category
See all Dismissed petitions in Civil Cases Category
See all partially allowed petitions in Civil Cases Category