Om Prakash vs Union Of India
2023 Latest Caselaw 20582 MP

Madhya Pradesh High Court

Om Prakash vs Union Of India on 6 December, 2023

                                                       1
                           IN    THE     HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                              AT JABALPUR
                                                   BEFORE
                                        HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK JAIN
                                          ON THE 6 th OF DECEMBER, 2023
                                          WRIT PETITION No. 13367 of 2012

                          BETWEEN:-
                          1.    OM PRAKASH S/O SHRI PARBHU RAM MALIK,
                                AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, PURSHOTTAM DEVNANI,
                                JAI MEDICAL STORES, SULTANPUR

                          2.    KULDEEP MALIK S/O OM PRAKASH , AGED
                                ABOUT 58 YEARS, PURSHOTTAM DEVNANI JAI
                                MEDICAL STORES

                          3.    SMT. SUNITA HINDUJA W/O SHRI RAJKUMAR
                                HINDUJA , AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, JAI MEDICAL
                                STORES

                                                                              .....PETITIONERS
                          (BY SHRI AYUR JAIN - ADVOCATE )

                          AND
                          1.    UNION    OF INDIA THROUGH    DIRECTOR
                                (REHABILITATION) PUNARWAS BHAWAN, I.P.
                                ESTATE, NEW DELHI (DELHI)

                          2.    SECRETARY REHABILITATION DEPARTMENT
                                VALLBHA BHAWAN (MADHYA PRADESH)

                          3.    DISTRICT COLLECTOR SETTLEMENT OFFICER
                                CLAIM AND REHABILITATION ACT RAISEN
                                (MADHYA PRADESH)

                          4.    DEPUTY SECRETARY STATE OF M.P. AND ASSIST.
                                CUSTODIAN   GENERAL AND        SETTLEMENT
                                COMMISSIONER (MADHYA PRADESH)

                          5.    MANAGGING      OFFICER     /TAHASILDAR
                                GOHARGANJ (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                             .....RESPONDENTS
                          (BY SHRI PUSHPENDRA YADAV - DY. SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR UNION
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PARMESHWAR
GOPE
Signing time: 12/7/2023
5:46:00 PM
                                                        2
                          OF INDIA )
                          ( BY PUNEET SHROTI - GOVT. ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENTS/STATE.)

                                This petition coming on for admission this day, th e court passed the
                          following:
                                                                    ORDER

The present petition has been filed being aggrieved by Annexure-P/19 dated 09-04-2012 and Annexure-P/20 dated 11-05-2012. By the said orders, the application of the petitioners under Displaced persons ( Compensation & Rehabilitation) Act, 1954 has been rejected.

2. From the perusal of the said orders, it is seen that the sole reason before passing and rejecting the pending application of the petitioners is that the

said Act has been repealed in the year 2005. The authority reached to a conclusion that since the Act of 1954 has been repealed in the year 2005 hence, no orders in the pending proceedings can be passed.

3. The said issue is no more res integra in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India v. International Sindhi Panchayats 2020(11) SCC 679 has held that upon repeal of the Act of 1954, the

proceedings which were pending on the date of repeal before the competent authority under the Act of 1954 cannot be closed or rejected only on the ground of repeal because the said pending proceedings would be saved in terms of Section 6 of General Clauses Act. The following has been held in the said judgment:-

"1. We have heard Mr K. Radhakrishnan, learned Senior Counsel for the appellant, Mr Yashpal Dhingra, learned counsel for Respondent 1, Mr Arvind Savant, learned Senior Counsel for Respondents 2 to 5, Mr Shankar Chillarge, learned counsel for Respondents 6 to 8 and Mr Mukul Rohtagi, learned Senior Counsel for Respondent 9.

2. As against Respondents 6 and 8, it is ordered as follows. It is declared

that the provisions of Section 6 of the General Clauses Act are applicable to the Displaced Persons Claims and Other Laws Repeal Act, 2005 (for short "the Repeal Act, 2005") and that Respondents 6 and 8 herein shall continue to decide the cases and proceedings pending on the date of the said Repeal Act, 2005 and implement the decisions in the said cases under the unrepealed Displaced Persons Compensation and Rehabilitation Act, 1954 and other related Acts.

3. The civil appeal is disposed of as above. The above order also disposes of Public Interest Litigation No. 52 of 2006 pending before the Bombay High Court. No costs.

4. Leave granted. We are informed that the State of Punjab has enacted the Punjab Package Deal Properties (Disposal) Amendment Act, 2009 (for short "the 2009 Act"). It is further stated that pursuant to the above Act, the persons concerned were permitted to make applications to the competent authority within a period of 90 days from the date of publication of Notification dated 1-4-2009 but Respondents 1 to 3 have not done so."

4. In view of above, the impugned orders Annexure-P/19 and Annexure- P/20 cannot be allowed to stand and is hereby quashed. The competent authority shall decide the matter in accordance with law within three months from the date of communication of certified copy this order. Till the matter is decided afresh, interim order dated 31-08-2012 shall continue to operate.

5. With the aforesaid, the petition stands allowed/disposed off.

(VIVEK JAIN) JUDGE PG