Sohan Lal and another vs Central Government and another

D.S. Tewatia, J.—Sohan Lal son of Kesar Dass and Sunder Lal son of Tara Chand (hereinafter referred to as the petitioners) have impugned, through this writ petition the order dated February 6, 1970 of respondent No. 1.

The petitioners have alleged in the writ petition that they are displaced persons and on their migration to India, they settled at Jullundur where they occupied evacuee agricultural land measuring 4 Kanals 5 Marias comprised in plot No. 168 and Khasra No. 3269/1304 situate at Basti Sheikh, Jullundur City, and since then are in occupation and possession of the said land for a period of almost more than 13 years and have made constructions on the said land; that the said land was auctioned for a sum of Rs. 20,500/ to respondent No. 2 on August 24, 1959, who did not deposit the purchase price which led to the cancellation of the said auction and Mohinder Singh, respondent No. 2''s attorney and his real brother, was duly informed of the cancellation of the said auction; that after a lapse of 8/9 years respondent No. 2 approached the Chief Settlement Commissioner through a revision petition, who after accepting the same allowed respondent No. 2 vide his order dated March 30, 1968 to deposit the balance amount of the auction price by May 30, 1938; that when respondent No. 2 failed to deposit the requisite amount by May 30, 1968, he was further permitted to do so by August 0, 1968; that he again failed to deposit the said amount within the extended period which fact led to the cancellation of the auction in his favour for non-payment of the balance amount; that after the cancellation of this sale in favour of respondent No. 2, the Department put the land in question to public auction on January 17, 1969, in which the petitioners made the highest bid of Rs. 27.025/- and the bid was entered in the name of petitioner No. 1 and 20 per cent of the advance money was deposited by the petitioners on January 1, 1969; that in the meantime the mother of respondent No. 2, Smt. Lakhpat Kaur filed an appeal against the order cancelling the auction-sale in favour of respondent No. 2 but the said appeal was rejected vide order dated April 2, 1S69, by the Assistant Settlement Commissioner (Shri S.N. Bahlj with powers of Settlement Commissioner that a revision petition to the Chief Settlement Commissioner on behalf of respondent No. 2 also met the same fate and thereafter an application u/s 33 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, was moved before the Central Government which was accepted and respondent No. 2 was granted 15 day''s time to deposit the requisite amount; that respondent No. 2 failed to deposit the requisite amount as directed by respondent No. 1 but the request of respondent No. 2 for further time to do the needful was granted and respondent No. 2 deposited the amount in question within the period so extended; that the petitioners were not impleaded as a party by respondent No. 2 before the rehabilitation authorities and when they themselves applied to be impleaded as one of the parties, their application was declined by the Chief Settlement Commissioner with the observation that in view of the revision to be rejected, their is no necessity to implead the applicants as one of the parties to the revision petition.

The impugned order dated February 6, 1970 has been challenged on the ground that the initial auction dated August 24, 1959 was null and void as by then no rules had been framed regarding the disposal of rural agricultural land forming part of the compensation pool; that respondent No. 1 had no jurisdiction to uphold the auction which was void and illegal; that respondent No. 1 had no jurisdiction to set aside the judgment of the Chief Settlement Commissioner which was valid, correct and just, that the property in question having been passed to the Punjab Government under the pakage deal, the rehabilitation authorities were left with no authority to piss any order regarding such a property; that the order of respondent No. 1 is without jurisdiction as the same has been passed without affording any opportunity of hearing to the petitioners. respondent No. 2 filed his return and asserted that the auction dated August 24, 1959 in his favour is valid and the order of respondent No. 1 confirming the same is valid and within his jurisdiction; that the petitioners were trespassers on the land and were not lessees under Chapter V-A of the Displaced Persons (Compensation & Rehabilitation) Rules, 1955, (hereinafter referred as the rules) the petitioners are not eligible to the allotment of the land under the rules in question at the reserve price; and that the value of the land in dispute is admittedly about Rs. 10,000/-

Mr. Y.P. Gandhi, learned counsel for the petitioners, has advanced the following three submissions before me-

(1) that the order of respondent No. 1 is void as the same has been passed contrary to the principles of natural justice without affording any opportunity to the petitioners and without notice to the petitioners;

(2) that the land in dispute formed part of the compensation pool and the same was made over under package deal by the Central Government to the Punjab Government and so the authorities under the Rehabilitation Act have no power to pass any order regarding the land in question: and

(3) that the auction dated August 24, 1959 in favour of respondent No. 2 is void abolition as by then no rales had been framed by the Government for the disposal of such property.

I have heard learned counsel for both sides and, after giving my careful consideration, I am of the considered view that there is no merit in this petition.

To appreciate the contentions advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners, a few facts at this stage may be noticed. That although the land in question was put to auction in which the petitioners were the highest bidders and had deposited one-fifth of the auction-price but the bid had not been accepted and the auction had not been confirmed till today; that the petitioners have not placed any material on the record to show that the package deal in question covers the land of the type in dispute.

Now as regards petitioner''s first contention, I am of the view that there is no merit in this contention at all The petitioners, merely on the basis of being the highest bidders in the auction which bid was not finally accepted and confirmed, have not acquired any right in the laid of any kind as held by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Bombay Salt and Chemical Industries Vs. L.J. Johnson and Others, and so cannot be considered a necessary part to be impleaded by respondent No. 2 as one of the respondents before the rehabilitation authorities. The dispute being confined to respondent No. 2 and the Central Government, the petitioners do not come anywhere and have no right to be heard.

As regards the second contention, as already noticed, the petitioners have not placed any material on the record, not even a copy of the package deal which could show as to what kind of land and the interest therein was made over to the Punjab Government under the package deal by the Central Government and so the petitioners have failed substantiate the sub mission by placing adequate material on the record.

Mr. Y.P. Gandhi, learned counsel for the petitioners, has laid great stress on his third submission and in support of it he has referred me to a Division Bench decision reported in Bishan Singh v. The Central Government 2 and has drawn my pointed attention to paragraph 20 at page 83 of the said decision, which reads -

Alter examining the relevant provisions of the Act, 1 am of the view that it was necessary for the Central Government under the Act to frame rules for this class of displaced persons also. These rules are necessary in older that the objects of the Act may be attained. The Act really imposes a duty on the Central Government to wake rules to carry out the purposes of the Act. The compensation pool has to be utilised in accordance with the provisions of the Act and the Rules made thereunder. Power given under this Act is to be used in a certain particular way. Displaced persons, for whose benefit these Rules have to be made, are entitled get them framed and the conditions for the same are given in Sections 8 and 40 of the Act.

Learned counsel for the respondents has emphasised the fact that the auction in favour of respondent No. 2 is not void ambition but it is merely voidable. In support of his argument he has placed reliance on another Division Bench decision of this Court reported in Sona Ram and Ors. v. Central Government and Ors. (1968) 70 P.L.R. 599, and drawn my attention paragraphs 18 and 19 at page 605, which read -

Learned counsel for the applicants submitted that Bishan Narain J. had quashed the press notes and the circular letter in view of this Court''s decisions in Ram Nath and Anr. v. The Central Government (1960) 62 P.L.R. 53, and the case of Bishan Singh v. The Central Government (1961) 63 P.L.R. 75. In Bishan Singh''s case, it has been specifically mentioned that any action taken or intended to be taken on the basis of the press rotes and the circular letter was of no legal effect. It was, therefore, by sheer accidental omission that the learned Judge had forgotten to mention in the order that the auction in favour of respondents 4 to 6 was also set aside or it might be that since the writ was being accepted, it clearly meant that the applicants'' prayer for the quashing of the auction-sale in dispute was being allowed and it was not considered necessary to mention this fact specifically in the order He further submitted that since the District Rent and Managing Officer was misconstruing the order of the learned judge, the need for filing the present application had arisen and this Court had inherent powers to clarify the said order. Learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, argued that Bishan Narain J., purposely did not set aside the auction, because the applicants, not being the lessees had no right to the transfer of the land in dispute in their favour. The question as to whether they were entitled to the transfer of this property was left for the Department to decide and it. was so mentioned in the order of the learned Judge. In my view, the present application falls under the provisions of Section 151 of the Code. It is common ground between the parties that the applicants would have a right to purchase the property in dispute only if they were the lessees of the same. Their claim on this score was being opposed by the auction-surchasers in the writ petition itself. Bishan Narin J. had specifically mentioned in this order that the question whether the applicants were the lessees of the property or not and whether they were entitled to the transfer of this property on that ground was not being decided in the writ petition and was left open to be determined in other proceedings. All that was decided was that the press notes and the circular later were void. In other words, if the Department was refusing to transfer the land to the applicants because of certain restrictions contained in them, then it was not justified in doing so. The idea seems to be that it the Department found that the applicants were the lessees of the property, then they were entitled to its transfer and the auction would be set aside. If, on the other hand, they fail to establish this fact, then naturally they would have no grievance and the auction sale would remain unaffected. It was perhaps with that very object that since the point whether the applicants were the lessees of the property or not was not being determined in the writ petition that the learned Judge did not quash the auction-sale. A close scrutiny of the observation, reproduced above, from the Division Bench judgment of this Court in Sona Rant''s case (supra) shows that the auction held before the promulgation of the rehabilitation rules is not void ab imtio but the same is voidable at the instance of a party which under Chapter V-A of the rules is entitled to purchase the property in question at the reserve price. To appreciate what is said above, Rule 34-D of the rules, for facility of reference, may be noticed, which reads-

(1) Where any land to which this Chapter applies has been leased to a displaced person and such land consists of more than Khasra, the aggregate value of which exceeds Rs. 10,000/- such protion of the land the value of which does not exceed Rs. 10,000/- as the Regional Settlement Commissioner may select, shall be allotted to such person:

Provided that where any such land or any part thereof has been sub-leased to a displaced person and the sub-lessee has been in occupation of that land or part thereof continuosly from the 1st January, 1956, such land or part thereof, as the case may be, the value of which does not exceed Rs. 10,000/- as the Regional Settlement Commissioner may select shall be allotted to such sub-lessee.

(2) In selecting the area for allotment under Sub-rule (1), the Regional Settlement Commissioner shall have regard to the Compactness of the area and other relevant matters.

(3) For the purposes of allotment of land under this rule, no Khasra shall be sub divided.

A perusal of the above rule would show that only a displaced person who was in possession of the land as a lessee or sub-lessee was entitled to be allotted the land under his possession as lessee. In the present case, the petitioners on their own showing are not in occupation of the land as lessess and this fact is confirmed by the uncontroverted assertion in the written statement that the petitioners were in possession of the land in question as trespassers and not as lessees and so they are not eligible to the allotment of the land under Rule 34-D of the rules and acquired no right to challenge the auction-sale held prior to the promulgation of the rules contained in Chapter V-A of l955 Rules. Besides, they acquired no such right on the basis of their being the highest bidders in the auction, which has neither been accepted nor confirmed. In the ultimate analysis, the position that merges is that the auction in favour of respondent No. being merely voidable has not so far been impugned by a person who is eligible under the rules to the allotment of the said land, with the result that the said auction continues to be valid and good till such time as the same is avoided in accordance with law at the instance of a person eligible to the allotment of the land in question covered by the said auction.

Before parting with the writ petition yet another contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners will be noticed and that is with regard to the powers of the Central Government u/s 33 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954. learned counsel his urged that the Central Government u/s 33 can set aside the order of the Chief Settlement Commissioner only when it comes to the conclusion that the said order is either illegal or improper. Section 33 of the said Act is as under -

The Central Government may at any time call for the record of any proceeding under this Act and may pass such order in relation thereto as in its opinion the circumstances of the case require and as is not inconsistent with any of the provisions contained in this Act or the rules made thereunder." A bare perusal of the provisions of Section 30 reproduced above would show that the Central Government u/s 33 enjoyed plenary powers and the exercise of that power is not res rioted by any such consideration as urged by the learned counsel for the petitioners.

For the reasons reworded above, this (sic) is dismissed but I make no order as to costs.