LAKHPAT RAJ JUNEJA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The dispute relates to a fairly big property situate at Palwal, District Faridabad. It comprises of a big sarai and a dozen adjoining shops on the ground floor besides flat on the first floor and open land. It is an evacuee property acquired by competent authority under Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954 (for short 'the Act'). Apart from the appellant, there are other persons also who claim to be in possession of part of the property. In April 1969, the Chief Settlement Commissioner directed the sale and transfer of the property in favour of the appellant for a sale consideration of about Rs. 17,000/-. In May 1969, the sale deed was executed and registered in favour of the appellant. Soon thereafter, a petition under S. 33 of the Act was filed before the Central Government by 11 persons challenging the transfer and sale in favour of the appellant pursuant to the order of the Chief Settlement Commissioner. The petition though initially filed before the Central Government was later transferred for disposal to the Commissioner and Secretary to the Government of Haryana, Rehabilitation Department, who was exercising powers of the Central Government under S. 33 of the Act. The property was transferred in favour of the appellant treating it to be an indivisible single property.

(2.) Section 34 of the Act, inter alia, stipulates that the Central Government may direct that any of its power be also exercised by such officer or authority as may be specified in the notification. By a notification dated 17th April, 1970, the Government of India, in exercise of powers conferred by sub-section (1) of S. 34 of the Act directed that powers exercisable by it under sub-section (4) of the Ss. 24, 28 and S. 33 of the Act shall be exercisable also by the Secretary to the Government of Haryana, Rehabilitation Department, in respect of proceedings pertaining to acquired evacuee properties and lands situate within the State of Haryana.

(3.) By an Order dated 8th March, 1973, the Secretary to the Government of Haryana in exercise of powers under S. 33 of the Act cancelled the order of Chief Settlement Commissioner of April, 1969 directing transfer and sale of the property to the appellant at about Rs. 17,000/- and consequently, sale and conveyance deed issued in favour of the appellant in May, 1969 was also set aside. The said order inter alia notices that the examination of whatever record was made available throws a good deal of light on the sordid affair of transfer. The order also notices that despite various letters and reminders, attempts were made to withhold the record and requisite files. It further notices that the entire mischief of transfer of property for about Rs. 17,000/- occurred because of misleading report by the Regional Settlement Commissioner. The record showed that the property had been valued in December 1967 at about Rs. 54,000/- and earlier in October, 1967, the market value had been assessed at about Rs. 75,000/-. In this view, the order concludes that it was clear that despite existence of evaluation assessment by competent officers of much higher market value which must been suppressed due to ulterior motives, the Regional Settlement Commissioner obtained a convenient low evaluation report with a view to favour someone and misguide the Chief Settlement Commissioner ans thus misled him into passing of order approving sale for about Rs. 17,000/-. It has also been noticed that worse than the suppression of the correct market value was the fact of suppression of the pendency of applications of others who were claiming right of transfer of the property and were also protesting about the efforts being made to transfer the property surreptitiously to the appellant. A fear had been expressed by others that without taking into consideration their rights based on occupation etc. the property was being sought to be transferred to one person in utter disregard of their rights of occupation. The conclusion reached was that property was ordered to be transferred at gross undervaluation and also by overlooking the claim of others. Ever since the passing of this order, the appellant has undertaken in last about three decades protracted litigation which we would presently notice.