HARI DAI Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal under caluse 10 of the Letters Patent is directed against the judgment of the learned single Judge quashing the order dated January 15, 1964 passed by the Central Government in suo moto revision under section 33 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954, hereafter called "the Act".

(2.) House No. 91/105 situated in Katra Umar Khan, Taj Ganj, Agra (U.P.), which was an acquired evacuee property, was allotted to one Shrimati Vidya Wanti, daughter of the appellant. The allottee was not interested in the purchase of the house and it was put to auction on August 27, 1959. The appellant lived in the house along with her daughter. At the auction she gave the highest bid for Rs. 2425.00. As she herself was also a displaced person having verified claim, instead of making the deposit of 10 per cent of the bid amount in cash as required by sub-rule (8) of rule 90 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Rules, 1955, hereafter called "the Rules", she executed an indemnity bond in compliance with the proviso to the sub-rule. On September 8, 1959 the appellant's bid was accepted on the basis of this indemnity bond. Later, however, the Assistant Settlement Officer (Processing Branch) Reported that the balance money of the claim payable to the appellant was not sufficient to cover the requisite 10 per cent of the bid amount. By order dated February 24, 1960 the Assistant Settlement Commissioner, U.P., therefore, cancelled the bid of the appellant and directed that the house be resold. It was accordingly auctioned for the second time on April 21, 1960. One Dewan Chand gave the highest bid of Rs. 2825.00 at this auction. In the meantime the Managing Officer informed the appellant of the order cancelling her bid. She filed an appeal. Shri Parshotam Sarup, Deputy Chief Settlement Commissioner, by order dated October 13, 1960 rejected this appeal on the ground that the copy of the order appealed from had not been filed along with the appeal as required by rule 103(2) of the Rules. It appears that the appellant applied for a review of this order but this application was also dismissed by Shri Parshotam Sarup by order dated January 17, 1961. The appellant, however, kept on agitating and making representations and eventually the matter was taken up by the Central Government in suo moto revision in exercise of powers under section 33 of the Act. Shri N. P. Dube, Joint Secretary to the Government of India, in exercise of powers vested in the Central Government, after hearing all the parties concerned, namely, the representative of the Department, counsel for the appellant and counsel for Dewan Chand, the contesting respondent in this appeal, found that as against the deposit of Rs. 2424.00 i.e. 10 per cent of the bid amount, the value of the unpaid claim of the appellant mentioned in the indemnity bond was only Rs. 236.00 so that there was a difference of Rs. 6.00 only (to be exact it would be Rs. 64.00). He also found that there had been some confusion on the part of the Department in the matter of assessment of the appellant's claim. Whereas in August, 1957, he said, the Department had processed the appellant's claim for l/5th Pro rata share and on this basis paid her a sum of Rs. 944.00, later in January, 1958 the Settlement Officer (Judicial) held that her share was l/4th and not l/5th. This order, he observed, was again reviewed by the same officer on February 11, 1958 and the appellant was held to be entitled to l/5th share. In September, 1958 the Settlement Officer (Judicial) once again examined the matter and found that the appellant's share was l/4th. While doing so, according to Mr. Dube, the Settlement Officer also stated in his order that the appellant was, in addition, entitled to be paid the share of her two sons. In these circumstances he held that before cancelling the bid of the appellant, the proper thing for the Department to do was to have served a notice on her that she should make up the deficiency and as this was not done "the Department had no business to cancel the first sale in favour of Shrimati Hardai (appellant herein) and to put the House to re-sale". The sale in favour of Dewan Chand as well as orders passed by the Deputy Chief Settlement Commissioner dated October 13, 1960 and January 17, 1961 affirming the order of the Assistant Settlement Commissioner dated February 24, 1960, cancelling the bid, were set aside and the Department was directed to issue notice to the appellant "to make up the deficiency, if any, in payment of 10 per cent of the bid money together with the balance price of the property". Against this order, Dewan Chand filed the writ petition which has led to this appeal.

(3.) The learned single Judge dealing with the writ held that Shri Dubey could not have exercised powers of the Central Government under section 33 to pass the impugned order as the matter had already been dealt with and emined by the Central Government through its Joint Secretary, Shri Shiveswarkar as is borne out by Annexures 1' and 'J' dated January 20, 1962 and March 12, 1962 respectively whereby the representation of the appellant had been rejected "by necessary implication". He further held that the order of Shri Dubey was also otherwise vitiated in as much as after the finding that there was a short deposit of Rs. 6/8.00 there was not warrant in law for the view that the Department should have served a notice on the appellant to make up the deficiency.