SUNDRI BAI Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Respondent No. 3 was allotted disputed premises in 1950. Later it was sought to be transferred to him. He had shown his father and 3 petitioners as family members. He gave part of the price of quarter and for balance he gave verified claim of his father. Due to latter, petitioners (widow and other sons) claimed a share. Managing officer held against petitioners on 24-3-65. Their appeal, revision and further revision were rejected. They then filed writ in High Court. Para 9 onwards, judgement is:-

(2.) The counsel for the petitioners has raised the following contention :- 1. The statutory Rule 7 framed under the Act does not apply to the adjustment of the price of the property purchased in the instant case. 2. Shri G. D. Kshetrapal. Joint Secretary, was also the Chief Settlement Commissioner and so was purporting to revise his own order and so had no jurisdiction to exercise the powers of the Central Government under Section 33 of the Act. 3. The powers of revision conferred on the Central Government under section 33 are unfettered and unguided and so the impugned order is legally bad. 4. The adjustment of the claim of Daulat Ram deceased passed on to him a right and interest in the property which is heritable by all his legal representatives, including the petitioners.

(3.) A resume of the facts shows that the claim of Daulat Ram deceased had not been associated in the purchase of the property and so it could not be said that he had; joined in the purchase or was entitled to any share or interest in the property. The rehabilitation authorities have noticed that Daulat Ram during his lifetime, by a letter mentioned in the orders had agreed for the utilization of the claim in payment of the price of the property. The adjustment had, therefore, been made by the authorities under Rule 7 and not under Rule 90 (15) as amended. The material portion of clause (d) (hi) Section 2 of the Act defines public dues as including the amount of purchase money or any part thereof and any interest on such amount or part remaining unpaid and recoverable from the displaced person on account of transfer to him of any property or interest therein. The relevant portion of Rule 7 framed under the Act lays down that the Settlement Commissioner would ascertain the public dues recoverable from the applicant and the members of his family and the same shall, after enquiry under another statutory rule be recoverable. Under Rule 7. public dues of the nature of unpaid instalments on account of any property purchased on instalment basis as well as any other dues payable to the Central Government or the State Government or the Custodian, which may be declared as public dues, shall be payable. Sub- rule (3) gives the definition of members of the family as including the father residing with the applicant. There is a proviso to sub-rule (3) which does not apply to the facts of the case and so we are not concerned with it. A perusal of the said provisions leaves no room for doubt that money was payable by the contesting respondent on account of the price of the property in dispute and the same could, therefore, be legally recoverable from the amount of claim payable to the father of the purchaser in accordance with the provisions of law. Daulat Ram, who was residing with the respondent, in fact consented to the said recovery and so the question of any further enquiry did not arise. The rehabilitation authorities are, therefore, right in their observation that the claim of Daulat Ram had been correctly adjusted against the price of the property under Rule 7 without conferring any right or interest in the property on Daulat Ram. The first contention of the counsel, therefore, fails.