Dayal Kaur vs Financial Commissioner and Others

K. Kannan, J.

C.M. No. 4953 of 2014

Application is allowed, as prayed for. Exemption granted and the documents Annexures P7 to P9 are taken on record.

C.M. No. 6115 of 2014

Application is allowed, as prayed for. Reply by way of short affidavit filed by the State is taken on record.

Civil Writ Petition No. 5736 of 1991

The writ petition challenges the order passed by the Financial Commissioner exercising his powers under Section 33 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954 (for short, "the 1954 Act"). The impugned order confirmed the order already passed by the Deputy Commissioner-cum-Chief Settlement Commissioner whereby he dismissed the petition seeking for reopening an order earlier passed on 05.08.1971. The earlier order oh 05.08.1971 was in purported exercise of jurisdiction that vested in the Chief Settlement Commissioner under Section 24 of the 1954 Act. Under the said provision, the Chief Settlement Commissioner has a power to call for the records of his subordinate officers upto the level of Settlement Commissioner to examine the legality and propriety of an order already passed. The matter related to a claim by one Chanan Singh, whose representative is the present petitioner, that he was a displaced person from a place now in Pakistan and he was entitled to an allotment. An allotment was made in the year 1958 by the Managing Officer on 27.03.1958 for the offer price of Rs. 2,562.50. This allotment was challenged by a person by name Sohan Singh who complained that Chanan Singh was not a displaced person and that he had secured the order on a false representation about his status as such. The Managing Officer cancelled the allotment by an order dated 20.11.1961 which had gone in an appeal to the Additional Settlement Commissioner exercising the powers of Settlement Commissioner who disposed of the appeal filed by Chanan Singh and accepting his contention that he was a displaced person. It appears that a full price had been paid and a conveyance deed was also made on 10.11.1965. This order was again reopened by the Chief Settlement Commissioner under Section 24 that one Sat Pal gave a complaint that he was not a displaced person and that he was not eligible for transfer of the land. A fresh enquiry appears to have been carried out again and the authorized Chief Settlement Commissioner by his order dated 16.09.1966 held that he was not a displaced person and the certificate produced to that effect from the District Magistrate was not genuine. The impugned order passed on 05.08.1971 records the fact that the Chief Settlement Commissioner had called for a report from the District Magistrate about the status of the certificate issued by him and when he denied that he issued such certificate. The Chief Settlement Commissioner held that the allotment had been obtained by misrepresentation and fraud. The order passed in 1971 was sought to be reopened by revision filed in the year 1985 nearly 14 years later contending that the whole proceedings had gone behind his back and he had never been informed about the cancellation proceedings. The impugned order dated 12.08.1985 declined the plea on behalf of Chanan Singh''s representative on two grounds: (i) that the District Magistrate from whom the certificate was got issued informed that no such certificate had been issued; (ii) the Settlement Commissioner cancelled the allotment only'' after giving an opportunity to the petitioner to state his case and Chanan Singh, however, declined to avail to himself the opportunity by refusing to accept the summons.

Before the Chief Settlement Commissioner, it has been fervently argued, that the summons had not been issued to him and he had not refused to receive the summons and the authority has observed that it was not possible to examine the same at this length of time and more particularly when the petition was hopelessly barred by time, the same having been filed nearly 15 years after the order was passed in the year 1971.

The petition is on an issue which challenges the factual considerations of what have been rendered. I thought for a while whether there will be any purpose served by allowing for a fresh opportunity to be given. Chanan Singh is now no more. 6 decades and more have passed since partition of India and it is not possible to ascertain whether Chanan Singh lived in any part of Pakistan from where he was displaced. Therefore the assessment of whether he was a displaced person or not is just not possible. However, Chanan Singh had obtained an allotment on the basis of a certificate from the Magistrate. We have the record of the Chief Settlement Commissioner, the highest authority to state that the District Magistrate had himself stated that he had not issued such certificate. I cannot again reopen the issue and go into an enquiry of whether the District Magistrate had really issued the certificate or whether he had made a proper verification to deny such a certificate had not been issued. Yet another contention that Chanan Singh had not been served with summons cannot also be seen, since an attempt by the court to secure the records was answered by the State that the records have been destroyed and they are not available. The'' allotment proceedings of what have taken place in the year 1965 and the cancellation orders made after purported enquiry cannot become a matter of appraisal if it does not deal with the issues of law or questions of jurisdiction.

I will be loathe to take up issues or make conjectures on factual aspects of what are passionately argued by the counsel for the petitioner. No fresh opportunity can secure any better information than what the order contains. On a due consideration of all the relevant facts, all that can be seen is that a transfer which was made on 27.03.1958 is still in a state of limbo after 56 years from the date when the transfer was made. He and his representative have continued in possession all along. If I must state that Chanan Singh has committed some fraud and secured an allotment, it will be unfair to taint the fraud to his representative if the property had been wrongly transferred and had not been taken possession of by the State. If the petitioner has continued in possession, then the only benefit which I will secure to him will be to allow for a consideration of retention of the property if he is prepared to pay the price which is ascertained by the authorities. The manner of disposal of the property under the Act is by auction. I will make a deviation in the interest of justice for the value of the property to be paid as per circle rate (or collector rate) and give to the petitioner the offer to pay the price in the manner prescribed under the rules. The determination of price without resort to auction alone shall be the special procedure but every other procedure relating to transfer under the Act shall be followed in terms of the relevant rules. I have had it verified from the respective parties that the circle rate is Rs. 6,700/- per square yard now. That shall be the price that the petitioner will pay, if he chooses to retain the property.

The challenge to the impugned order ought to fail and, therefore, the prayer therefor is declined. However, in the interest of justice, I have provided for a consideration for purchase which shall be made within a period of 3 months and if the petitioner avails to Himself the benefit of this order, he may express his acceptance and proceed in accordance with law. If the petitioner is unwilling to accept the price as determined, the State shall be at liberty to cause an ejectment of the petitioner and take possession in accordance with law. The writ petition is disposed of.