NIRMAL SINGH Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE property No.1612 (New), Darya Ganj, New Delhi was an evacuee property. It was auctioned on 21.10.1955 under the provisions of Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954. One Smt. Budhwant Kaur wife of the petitioner offered the highest bid of Rs.38,700/- for the said property. On November 7, 1955 the bid of the wife of the petitioner was accepted and necessary communication to that effect was issued to the wife of the petitioner. One Sh.Mohan Singh Sawhney, the husband of respondent No. 8 was the holder of verified claim in respect of properties left in Pakistan and his claim was registered with respondent No.3. Sh.Mohan Singh Sawhney, now represented by respondent No.8, his widow, is alleged to have associated his claim for adjustment against the cost of the property purchased in auction by the wife of the petitioner. Before this could be adjusted, there was a demand of about Rs.1,21,625/- against the said Mr.Mohan Singh Sawhney with reference to the lease of machinery and the premises bearing No.297, Katra Sujan Rai, Delhi Gate, Delhi. THE claim which was sought to be adjusted against the sale of the property purchased by the petitioner was adjusted by the Managing Officer against the demand of Rs.1,21,625/- made against the said Sh.Mohan Singh Sawhney. This demand and adjustment is now challenged by the petitioner by filing the present writ petition on the ground that the respondents did not have jurisdiction to adjust the claim of Mr.Mohan Singh Sawhney against the demand made by them towards lease etc. of the property at Delhi Gate.

(2.) IN my opinion, the petitioner has no locustandi to challenge the demand made by the respondents against the said Sh.Mohan Singh Sawhney. The petitioner under the law did not have any right to purchase the claim of the said Mohan Singh Sawhney as has been alleged in the petition. The deceased Mohan Singh Sawhney now doubt could have adjusted his claim against the price of the property purchased by the wife of the petitioner but as in the meantime as there was a claim of the respondents against Mohan Singh Sawhney in respect of the lease of the property in Delhi Gate as also lease of the machinery, in my opinion, the respondents had a preferential right of adjustment of their demand against claim of the said Mohan Singh Sawhney and the balance amount, if any, could have been adjusted against the price of the property purchased by the petitioner. Since nothing was left after adjustment of the demand made by the respondents against the claim of the said Sh.Mohan Singh Sawhney, in my opinion, nothing could be adjusted against the price of the property. Only person aggrieved by the decision of the respondents to adjust the claim of the said Mr.Sawhney against the demand raised by the respondents, was the said Mr.Sawhney and it is only he, who could challenge such adjustment. No right of the petitioner has been infringed which could give him a right to challenge the impugned order of adjustment. The petitioner, in my opinion has no locustandi to file present writ petition and the same is, accordingly, dismissed with no order as to costs.