NAZRUL HAQ Vs. DEPUTY CHIEF SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this writ petition filed under Articles 226 and227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has sought the quashing of (i)order dated 26.5.1972 passed by Shri S.R. Kapoor, Authorised ChiefSettlement Commissioner, New Delhi and (Annexure 6 to the writ petition)and (ii) order dated 24.7.1974 passed by Shri Gulab L.Ajwani, DeputyChief Settlement Commissioner/Officer with delegated powers of CentralGovernment, whereby the claim of the petitioner for adjusting the amountagainst the price of the property allotted to him for his prior association ofcompensation of one Mr. Brahma Nand, claimant, has been ignored.

(2.) The relevant facts briefly are that the petitioner was allottedproperty No. XIV/8051 (New). He was held eligible to the transfer ofthis property as a non-claimant and he deposited Rs. 2.804.00 representing20^ of the price on 9.7.1959, the price of the property being Rs. 14.016.00 Heassociated the compensation of one Shri Brahma Nand claimant in C.A.F.No. RG/9,5/B/Sholapur/178 towards the balance cost of the property to theextent of Rs. 11.212.00 and filed association papers and other requisite documents. The said claimant associate Brahma Nand also associated withMohd. Usman for payment of the balance price towards property No.XIV/8046. The amount payable to the claimant associate against Statementof Account issued to him was Rs. 17,280.00. While processing the C.A.F.the Regional Settlement Commissioner. Bombay adjusted Rs. 10,344.56towards R.F.A. loan due from one Shri Hasomal Ladharam for whom, theclaimant associate stood surety/guarantor. He further adjusted Rs. 6,068.00towards balance price of property No. XIV/8046 purchased by Shri Mohd.Usman and the balance of Rs. 867.44 was adjusted towards the balanceprice of the property No. XIV/8051 purchased bv the petitioner. The petitioner filed an appeal against this processing of the C.A.F. of the claimantassociate which was dismissed vide order dated 26.5.1972 (Annexure 6).Against the dismissal of the aforesaid appeal, the petitioner filed a revisionwhich was also dismissed vide order dated 24.7.1974 (Annexure 8). Againstthe dismissal of the appeal and revision, the present petition has beenfiled.

(3.) Both the authorities below have held that it cannot be held thatthe association papers of the petitioner had been tendered prior to theassociation papers tendered by respondent No. 6 and therefore, those papersshould have been given preference. It has further been held that theamount of R.F.A. loan due from Shri Hassomal Ladharam had beencorrectly recovered/adjusted from the compensation payable to his suretyShri Brahma Nand, respondent No. 5.