Karam Chand vs Union of India and ors.

M. M. Punchhi, J. (Oral)

A contentious dispute was settled by Shri Tejendra Khanna, IAS, Financial Commissioner Revenue, Punjab as delegatee of the powers of the Central Government under Section 33 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954 vide order Annexure P15, the subjectmatter of challenge in the petition.

The dispute began when the contesting respondents purchased a piece of urban evacuee agricultural land Jalandhar on 3171959. That was by way of an auction done by the Rehabilitation Department under some press notes. One Harnam Singh approached this Court in CWP No. 24 of 1960 and the concerned press notes and the circular in pursuance thereof as also the auction in favour of the contesting respondents were set aside on 1731961, vide order Annexure P1. All the same, title by executing a regular conveyance deed was conveyed to the contesting respondents by the Rehabilitation Department. The view of this Court was in consonance with a Division Bench in Bishan Singh v. The Central Government and others, 1961 PLR 75, which went to Supreme Court in an appeal. The Supreme Court set aside the Division Bench judgment and hold that the press notes were valid and the Rehabilitation Department could sell its properties in the manner in which it had. The judgment of the Supreme Court is reported in Surinder Singh v. Central Government and others, AIR 1986 S.C. 2166 : 1987 R.R.R. 100.

In the meantime, in the year 1978, the present petitioner appeared on the scene to make an application for the purchase of the area as sublessee. So a bout began between the auction purchasers and the sublessee. They had a cantankerous litigation under various heads. The Chief Settlement Commissioner vide his order dated 1431984 (Annexure P14) learned in favour of the sublessee and remitted the case back for decision of the application of the sublessee. The Financial Commissioner, however, in the impugned order learned in favour of the auction purchaser on the strength of the Supreme Court case aforequoted and doubted the bona fides of the sublessee of his being on the land, when he had made an application for the first time in year 1978. So the dispute has been settled in favour of the auctionpurchaser in this manner.

There has to some end to be litigation. Almost 28 years have passed when the parties have kept litigating in various forums. Having gone through both the orders, Annexures P14, & P15, i. e. one in favour of the petitioner and the other in favour of the contesting respondents, we feel that we rather refrain from interfering in the matter, for it cannot be for gotten, that it is in the interest of the State that there should be end to litigation, at least at some stage.

With these observations, we dismiss the writ petition.