K L ANAND Vs. REHMATULLAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Plots bearing Khasra Sakni Nos 13 and 14 In village Kalu Sarai, New Delhi was sold by the Rehabilitation Department in favour of Dr. K.L. Anand vide sale certificates Exhibits Public Witness . 1/1 and Public Witness . 1/2, wherein the boundaries were not correctly mentioned and corrected sale certificates were issued on 25th October, 1969, copies of which are Annexures Exhibits P.W. 1/3 and Public Witness . 1/4. The sale certificates were issued pursuant to an open auction held by the Rehabilitation Department on 14th April, 1967, in which Dr. K.L. Anand was found to be the highest bidder.

(2.) Rehmatullah and his brother filed Civil Writ Petition No. 960 of 1969 in this Court on 9th September, 1969 challenging the sale certificates issued to Dr. K L. Anand and the writ petition was dismissed by a Single Judge of this Court on 15th September, 1978 and their Letters Patent Appeal No. 95 of 1978 was dismissed on 14th September, 1982. The judgment of the Letters Patent Bench is Exhibit Public Witness . 1/7. The crucial finding relevant for consideration, recorded by the Letters Patent Bench is as follows : "Here the contention is that their property has been sold in the garb of selling evacuee property. In order to find out whether in fact the appellants Property has been sold, one has merely to look at the three lots which were allocated and accepted in the proceedings under the Evacuee Interest (Separation) Act. The document on the record shows that the lot which fell to the share of the appellants had only agricultural land and superstructures. What has been sold to respondent No. 4 is a house with possibly land appartunant thereto. There is nothing on the record to show that any encroachment has been made by the impugned sale on the property allocated to the appellants in the separation of interest proceedings. Both the petition and the appeal records are singularly void of particulars and details. Learned Counsel for the appellants contends that land more than what was declared to be evacuee property could not be sold, and therefore, obviously the appellants land has also been sold. First of all the sale certificate does not give any area of the land sold. Secondly even if land more than what was held to be evacuee share was sold, what the appellants have to show is that any land belonging to them has been sold before they can succeed in this Court. This, they have failed to do before us. In our opinion this litigation has been, to say the least, vexatious. The appellants have failed to show how they or any part of their property has been adversely affected. They have been litigating against respondent No. 4 for no rhyme or reason. Respondent No. 4 was Dr. KL. Anand in the proceedings before the Letters Patent Bench.

(3.) While the writ petition wag pending in this Court, on 9th September, 1970 Dr. K.L. Anand filed a civil suit In the Court of Sub-Judge 1st Class, Delhi against Rehmatullah and his brother's legal representatives, as brother had died in the meantime, to seek possession of Khasra Sakni Nos. 13 and 14, referred to above, on the ground that the possession of the defendants was unauthorised and the plaintiff was owner on the basis of sale certificates granted to him by the Rehabilitation Department. He also claimed damages for the months of April and May, 1970 at the rate of Rs. 200.00 per mensem and 640 future damages till possession of the property is restored to him. In the plaint the corrected boundaries of the property were mentioned.