ANANT SINGH Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Shri Anant Singh petitioner in his writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution has prayed that the orders of (1) the Managing Officer dated 7th December, 1958, and 21st Fabruary, 1959, (2) the Settlement Commissioner (G. B. P.) dated 15th July, 1959, and (3) Mr. G. B. talvani. Settlement Commissioner with delegated powers of the Chief Settlement Commissioner dated 19th March, 1960, be quashed and they be directed to allot and Transfer Government built property flat No. 42, Khan Market, New Delhi, in his favour. The facts relied upon by him in support thereof may briefly be narrated as here under.

(2.) The petitioner, a displaced person from West Pakistan, on migration to India was allotted tented accommodation in Harding Avenue, New Delhi, on 5th June, 1948, and for this he deposited Rs. 150.00as security with the Cashier, Relief and Rehabilitation Commissioner (Annexure A). Subsequently on his application he was allotted shop N 0.42; Khan Market, New Delhi, on 9th January, 1952. He then moved the Department to allot him flat No. 42 just above the shop for his residence. This had previously been allotted to another displaced person who was occupying at the time a spacious building in Karol Bagh, New Delhi. He allowed the petitioner to occupy the flat in anticipation of Government permission. The petitioner informed the Delhi State about his occupying the said flat. The tented accommodation which was with him since 5th June, 1948, was vacated by him on 8th May 1952. He is an ex-service Officer and on that score in the month of July,1953 the Resettlement Section of the Ministry of Defence allotted him a vacant piece of land in the Defence colony. Thereafter the Housing and Rent Officer, Delhi, directed him to appear before the Multiple Allotment and subletting Board on 9th October, 1953, which he did (Annexure D.). His explanation that the tented accommodation had already been vacated by him satisfied Shri Shiv Charan Gupta, Chairman of the Board, who asked him to produce (1) receipt No. 24, book No. 7320, issued by New Delhi Municipal Committee for security deposit for electrification of flat No. 42. and (2) letter showing that tent No. 43, Harding Avenue, had been vacated by him (Annexure E). This letter was duly complied with and a cheque for Rs. 300.00 was also sent by the petitioner to the Housing and Rent Officer, Delhi, towards the rent account of flat No. 42 (Annexure F).

(3.) The Secretary, Relief and Rehabilitation Department of the erstwhile Delhi State, in the year 1955 issued instructions to the authorities to regularise unauthortised occupations of persons who had been in possession of premises prior to 1st April, 1954. The instructions were published in the press (Annexure G). The Minister for Rehabilitation, Delhi State, in pursuance of these instructions, on 25th July, 1956, regularly allotted flat No. 42 in favour of the petitioner. He was also advised not to give up his plot situate in the Defence Colony because the Minister recommended his case for the grant of a loan to build his bungalow and that as long as no building was constructed on it, that could not constitute multiple allotment. At the same time the Minister directed him to pay Rs. 500.00 as rent of flat No. 42 Khan Market, to the Housing and Rent Officer, Delhi which he readily paid and obtained receipt (Annexure H). In spite of this the Housing and Rent Officer, Delhi, by his letter dated 18th December, 1956, directed him to vacate flat No. 42 on 24th January, 1957. Thereupon he informed the Housing and Rent Officer and Dr. Yudhvir Singh, the erstwhile Minister for Rehabilitation, Delhi State, that he would like to surrender his plot in the Defence Colony. In the meantime he received another communication dated 6th March, 1957, from Kanwar Gajendra Singh, Deputy Chief Settlement Commissioner, on behalf of the Government of India, that he would not be allowed to keep flat No. 42 because he had already been allotted a plot of land in the Defence Colony (Annexure J). He soon after represented to the author of the above letter that he was prepared to surrender his plot in the Defence Colony when he was asked to produce a surrender certificate so that further action Could be taken on his request for regularising his occupation of flat No. 42. The petitioner obtained the necessary surrender certificate from the Resettlement Section of the Ministry of Defence, Government of India (Annexure 1) on 28th March, 1958, and sent it to Shri M. R. Vaid, Housing and Rent Officer, Delhi, by his covering letter dated 29th March, 1957 (Annexure K), a copy of which was forwarded to Kanwar Gajendra Singh, Deputy Secretary, Ministry of Rehabilitation. The petitioner was allowed to occupy the flat till 25th July, 1957, vide Government of India letter dated 18th April, 195 7 (Annexure M). Curiously enough even before the expiry of the date to which he had been allowed to occupy the flat a notice was pasted on the premises on 12th June, 1957, to vacate the permises within ten days. This notice was issued under section 3 of the Government Premises Eviction Act. The petitioner successfully lodged a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution for -quashing order. The Additional Settlement Commissioner (Sales) withdrew the above notice dated 10th June, 1957 (Annexure N). The petitioner again was served with a notice dated 7th December, 1958, under section 19 of the Displaced persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act. (Hereinafter referred to as the Act) by the Managing Officer on 16th January, 1959. The petitioner moved for the cancellation of the notice when he was informed by the Managing Officer by his letter dated 21st February, 1959, that his possession of flat No. 42 could not be regularised. Anappeal against this order was dismissed by Shri L. B. Mathur, Settlement Commissioner (G. B. P.) Jamnagar House, New Delhi, on 15th July, 1959. His revision petition was rejected by Shri G.B. Lalvani, Settlement Commissioner with delegated powers of Chief Settlement Commissioner by his order dated 19th March, 1960 (Annexure P). He moved the Central Government for setting aside of the order (Annexure P) under section 33 of the Act but without success. A copy of the order rejecting his representation is Annexure Q. The petitioner contends that the impugned orders passed by the various officers were illegal, Malacious, ultra vires and thus were not enforceable mainly on the grounds as reproduced below :-