AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Harbans Lal , J.—This is a writ petition under articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, for the issuance of a writ of Certiorari quashing the order of the Chief Settlement Commissioner, dated January 28, 1976(sic) (Annexure P-4), and the order of the Financial Commissioner, dated April 0,(sic) 1976 (Annexure P 5).
The case of the Petitioner is that he is a displaced person from Pakistan and held verified claim Property bearing No. 3338/1 (hereinafter to be called the disputed property), situated in Amritsar) was deciared(sic) evacuee(sic) property under the Administration of Evacuee Property Act 1950 (hereinafter to be called the Act of 1950), and was allotted to him. He continues in possession of the same since 1947. A notification was published in the official gazette u/s 12(2) of the DI(sic) placed Persons (Compensation end Rehabilitation) Act 1954 (hereinafter called the Act of 1954), with regard to this property and in consequence thereof, all rights, title and interest of the evacuee(sic) were extinguished and the property was vested absolutely in the Central Government The same, thereafter, formed part of the compensation pool u/s 20 of the Act of 1954. An agreement relating thereto was entered into between the Petitioner and the Settlement Officer, Amritsar, on November 12, 1953,(sic) according to which the disputed property was to be transferred to the Petitioner for Rs. 8,375/-. After adjusting the verified claim of Rs 82/-,(sic) the balance amount was to be paid by mnents(sic) of The first instalment Rs. 82/(sic) was paid by him in pursuance of this agreement. Sadar Anjuman Ahmedia, Qadin, District Gurdaspur, Respondent No. 2 , claiming the disputed property as its ownership, managed to scure(sic) an order dated January 23, 1960, from the District Rent and Managing Officer, Amritsar, to the effect that the disputed property Had been restored to it by the Government of India by its order dated March 9, 1959. A copy of the order to this effect has been filed by Respondent No. 2, as Annexure R.1. This was contested by the Petitioner before the District Rent and Managing Officer, Amritsar, who made enquiry from the Custodian, Evacuee Property, Punjab, Jullundur about this order. The latter authority informed him by his letter dated October (sic), 1960 (Annexure P1), that there was no such restoration order in favour of Respondent No 2 on the file relating to the disputed property. (sic) the District Rent and Managing Officer, Jullundur, made a report in favour of the Petitioner and consequently, an order was passed by the Regional Settlement Commissioner, Jullundur, to the effect that the disputed properly may be transferred to the Petitioner, as ordered before. The order in these terms was conveyed to the District Rent and Managing Officer, Jullu-ndur, by letter dated April 3, 1963 (Annexure P-2). After the passing of this order, the Petitioner deposited the balance amount of the sale consideration along with interest and ultimately sale deed in respect of the disputed property was executed by the Assistant Settlement Officer (Accounts) cum-Managing Officer, Rehabilitation Department, Punjab, Jullundur on July 11, 1975, in favour of the Petitioner. The said deed was got registered with the Sub-registrar, Amritsar on July, 16, 1975.
Respondent No. 2, made a representation to the Deputy Secretary, (Rehabilitation cum-Chief Settlement Commissioner,) Jullun-dur, against the sale of the disputed property to the Petitioner and claimed that the same had been restored to it by the Government of India. The Chief Settlement Commissioner on this, passed interim order dated July 31, 19 5(sic) (Annexure (sic)-3) restraining the Petitioner from disposing of the disputed property during the pendency of the proceedings. Subsequent thereto, the Chief Settlement Commissioner Punjab, Jullundur, initiated suo motu proceedings u/s 24 of the Act of 1954, and set aside the order regarding sale of the disputed property in favour of the Petitioner after hearing both the parties and held that the disputed property stood restored in favour of Respondent No. 2, by the Government of India, by order dated March 9, 1 59(sic). A copy of this order is Annexure P 4 annexed to the writ petition Revision petition by the Petitioner u/s ?(sic) of the Act of 1954 before the Financial Commissioner, Revenue, Punjab, was also dismissed by order dated April 20, 1976 (Annexure P-5). These impugned orders, Annexures P 4 and P.5, resulting in the cancellation of sale of the disputed property in favour of the Petitioner has been challenged in the present writ petition.
The case of Respondent No. 2, in reply, is that the disputed property was not evacuee property and was restored to it by the Government of India vide its order dated March (sic), 1959, requisite information regarding which has conveyed to Shri Salahuddin Malik, Mukhtar-i -am of Respondent No. 2, by the District Rent and Managing Officer vide letter dated July 23, 1960 (Annexure R. 1) From this letter, it is also clear that a copy of this letter was also forwarded to the Petitioner. After the Regional Settlement Commissioner, Jullundur, by its order dated April 3, 1963, (Annexure P-2) had decided to finalise the trans action of sale of the disputed property in favour of the Petitioner, his order was cancelled by the Regional Settlement Commissioner himself by his subsequent order dated April 30, 1963 and intimation regarding the same was sent by him to the District Rent and Managing Officer Jullundur, by his letter Annexure R-2 and a copy of the same was also forwarded to the Petitioner as is evident from the indorsement(sic) made on the same, that is, annexure R.2. It has been further averred that the notification u/s 12(2) of the Act of 1954, alleged to have been published, according to the averment of the Petitioner, was in fact, not published and that the agreement to sell and the sale deed having been executed between the Petitioner and the Rehabilitation authorities, after the order of restoration had been passed in favour of Respondent No. 3,(sic) had no legal validity. The Chief Settlement Commissioner, rightly set aside the same proceedings end held the order of restoration in favour of Respondent No. 2 to be valid and binding. It was also urged that after the order of restoration had been passed, the Petitioner accenting the right of Respondent No. 2, took the disputed property on rent from Respondent No 2, by executing a lease(sic) deed on November 12, 1960, at the rate of Rs. 15/- per measem(sic) Afterwards, as some additions had been made in the demised, premises fresh lease deed was executed by the Petitioner in favour of Respondent No. 2 on September 18, 1975, and the monthly rent was increased from Rs. 15/-to Rs. 25/-. Subsequently, an ejectment application was filed on behalf of Respondent No. 2, against the Petitioner, regarding the disputed property, under the provisions of the East Punjab Urban Rent Resfiction(sic) Act, before the Rent Controller, Amritsar, in which the Petitioner tendered arrears of rent on the first date of hearing thereby acknow lodging the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. It was also alleged that the Petitioner knowing fully well the real position, deliberately made an application on March 6, 1975(sic), to the Managing Officer. Jullundur, with a request that the balance sale price be got deposited from him. It was under mistaken impression that the sale certificate was issued by the Department. Another allegation levelled in the written statement is that the letter (Annexure R-2), whereby the order in favour of the Petitioner (Annexure P 2) had been cancelled was got manoeuvered to be removed from the file of the case by the Petitioner Regarding the factum of lease by the Petitioner in favour of Respondent No 2 and the deposit of arrears of rent before the Rent Controller in the ejectment application filed against him by Respondent No 2, no attempt has been made by the Petitioner to rebut these facts.
According to the learned Counsel for the Petitioner, after the enforcement of the Act of 1954, the Central Government had acquired the disputed property as evacuee property by publishing a notification in the official gazette and under Sub-section (2) to Section 12 of the Act of 1954, all rights, title and interest of the evacuee, that is, Respondent No. 2, were exting ished and the same vested absolutely in the Central Government free from all encumbrances. The result of this was, according to the submission of the learned Counsel, that the disputed property became a part of the compensation pool and the same was transferred to the Petitioner u/s 20 on payment of sale consideration as prescribed by the authorities. The Petitioner in consequence thereof, had made payment, of the entire sale price. Even a sale deed was executed in his favour by the department. After the issuance of a notification u/s 12, it is gtd,(sic) it was not witnin(sic) the competence of the Government of India or any authority under the Act of 1954, to cancell the sale or restore the disputed property to Respondent No 2. Reliance in support of this preposition has been placed on Mangha Ram v. Norr Uddin, AIR 1969 A11.33 wherein it has been held that after the notification u/s 12 of the Act of 1954, no order under the Act of 1954 regarding restoration of the evacuee property in favour of the evacuee can be passed and there is no provision in the Act of 1954, to pass the order of restoration. This principle of law is not seriously disputed by Mr. Majithia, the learned Counsel for Respondent No 2. However, his emphavic(sic) contention is that the learned Counsel for the Petitioner, had not produced any such notification u/s 12 of the Act of 1954, relating to the disputed property and, therefore, the entire basis of the argument is knocked out
6 According to the learned Counsel for the Petitioner, a specific averment regarding the publication of this notification in paragraph 3 of the petition was made which was admitted by Respondent No. 2 in its reply. According to Mr. Majithia, the reply of Respondent No. 2, should be read as a whole. It was argued that though the averment in paragraph (sic) of the petition relating to the notification was inadvertently admitted, yet the position was made clear in reply to subparagraph (iv) to paragraph 11 of the petition in which this very averment was retiterated. After a careful persual or the averments in the petition and the reply, I am inclined to agree with the submission of Mr Majithia, that, in fact, the averment of the Petitioner regarding the publication of the notification u/s 12 of the Act of 1954 was denied by Respondent No. 2. Even otherwise, the Petitioner cannot take any advantage of the averment in paragraph 3, as no date is mentioned therein as to when this notification was published in the official gaztte According to the letter of the District Kent(sic) and Managing Officer, (Annexure R.1), the order of restoration of the disputed property to Respondent No 2, by the Government of India, had been passed on Match 9, 1959. The notification relied upon by the Petitioner u/s 12 will have any validity if the same was published prior to the order of restoration by the Government of India. If the notification was published after the order of restoration had been passed and the property ceased to be evacuee properly, such a notification will lose all its significance. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner has not been able to produce any such notification even at this stage and is not in a position to give the date on which the same was published in the official gazette. In these circumstances, the only conclusion is that no such notification u/s 12 had been published.
It was then contended by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner, that Respondent No 2 cannot tare any benefit from a reference of the order of restoration dated March 9, 1959(sic) in the letter of the District Rent and Managing Officer (Annexure R.1)(sic) as no order of restoration had been produced Besides it is clear from the letter of the Custodian, Evacuee Property, Punjab, Jullundur, (Annexure P 1), that no such order of restoration was traceable in the record This contention can-not be agreed to Respondent No. 2, cannot be deprived of its right to the property which accrued to it on account of the order of restoration simply because this order was not traceable on the file. There is a clear reference to this order and the details of the number of the order in the letter of the District Rent and Managing Officer, dated July 26, 1970(sic) (Annexure (sic)1) the genuineness(sic) of which has not been doubted on behalf of the Petitioner. In view of the specific reference in this letter, it is quiet reasonable to raise the presumption that the order of restoration had, in fact, been passed by the Government of India on March 9,
It has been further contended by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner, that the order regarding agreement of sale of the disputed property to the Petitioner, as ambodied(sic) in Annexure P 2, had been passed by the Regional Settlement Commissioner, Jullundur, who himself set aside the (sic) by this order dated April 30, 1963 (Annexure R 2,). A close persual of both these orders leaves no manner of doubt that Annexure R 2,(sic) tenramounts(sic) to review of the order, Annexure P 2, by the same authority, viz, the Reginal(sic) Settlement Commissioner who had no power of review u/s 25 of the Act of 1954. Apparently u/s 25, the Regional Settlement Commissioner, has not been conferred any power of review However, even if the order Annexure R.2, is ignored, the Petitioner cannot get any advantage of this legal position in view of the order passed by the Chief Settlement Commissioner, Jullundur, u/s 24 of the Act of 195(sic) (Annexure (sic)), by which the order regarding agreement of sale and the execution of the sale deed in favour of the Petitioner was set aside in suo motu proceedings and it was categorically held that the order of restoration in favour of Respondent No 2, pertaining to the disputed property, had been passed by the Government of India on March 9, 1959 and in view of the same, thereafter the said property could not be sold to the Petitioner. This order was upheld by the Financial Commissioner vide his order dated April 20, 1976 (Annexure P.5).
According to the learned Counsel for the Petitioner, the sale certificate in favour of the Petitioner having been issued, the sale could not be set aside even by the Chief Settlement Commissioner unless the conditions as embodied in Sub-clause (2) of Section 24, were satisfied. It is contended that the sale can be set aside under Sub-section (2) of Section 2 (sic) only if a case of fraud, false representation or concealment of any material fact in the matter of sale was established and in the present case, no such case was made out ven no such irregularity or illegally(sic) was alleged by Respondent No 2. In support of his proposition, reliance was placed on Shrimati Labh(sic) Kaur v. Union of India (1969) 71 P.L.R. 10 4 (sic). There is no merit in this connection. A close persual of Sub-sections (1) and (2) of Section 24, makes, it evident that the Chief Settlement Commissioner, has been vested with very wide powers of scrutinising the record of any proceedings under the Act and to satisfy himself as to the legality or propriety of any order by any authority. Sub-section (2) only embodies one of the illustrations in which circumstances the sale can be set aside if it is vitiated by fraud etc. but there is a clear reference in Sub-section (2) that the power under (sic) is Sub-section will have no effect on the wide powers as conferred on the Chief Settlement Commissioner under Sub-section (1) in view of the crefix,(sic) "without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing powers under Sub-section (sic) in this regard may also be made to the ratio of the decision of their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Om Prakash and Others Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Others, (sic) No other point has been argued.
In view of the above discussion, there is no merit in this writ petition which is dismissed In view of the peculiar facts of the case there will, however, be no order as to costs.