WASHDEV SINGH BIGI Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This second appeal arises out of a suit for a declaration instituted by the plaintiff-appellant on the allegations that he is a claimant and displaced person and lawful tenant of a Government-built property in question situated in Tilak Nagar, New Delhi. The said property is stated to be an allotable property, its value having been assessed at Rs. 3,200.00 The plaintiff pleaded that he was entitled to the transfer of this property at the assessed value under the provisions of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act (hereafter called the Act). His claim was denied and the property in dispute was transferred by the Union of India in favour of Smt. Kundan Devi, defendant No. 2. This transfer was described by the plaintiff to have been effected as a result of fraud and misrepresentation practised by the transferee's husband. The matter was taken by the plaintiff to the Settlement Commissioner on appeal, but the same was rejected on 14-3-1962. This order was described by the plaintiff to be without jurisdiction because the Assistant Commissioner, according to him, had not been delegated the powers of the Settlement Commissioner. The matter was further taken on revision to the Chief Settlement Commissioner, but that was also rejected on 11-6-1962. The approach to the Central Government under section 33 of the Act was also unsuccessful. It was thereafter that the present suit was instituted.

(2.) The pleadings of the parties gave rise to several issues, but issue No. 4, which is concerned with the plaintiff's locus standi to institute the present suit, alone concerns me. The trial Court came to the conclusion that the plaintiff had no locus standi to sue. The other issues were also decided on the merits by the trial Court. Issue No. 6 dealing with the plea of res judicata was decided in favour of the plaintiff.

(3.) On appeal, the learned Additional District Judge affirmed the judgment and decree of dismissal of the suit on 13-5-1968. According to the lower appellate Court, under Rule 42 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Rules, the authorities concerned had a discretion to transfer or not to transfer an allotable property to a displaced person who did not hold a verified claim and in view of this rule, the plaintiff- appellant had no locus standi to maintain the suit as he had no actionable claim against the Rehabilitation Department of the Government of India. From the judgment of the lower Appellate Court, it seems that no other ground was pressed before that Court. I have made this observation because Shri G. N. Aggarwal, learned counsel for one of the respondents, has tried to reagitate the question of res judicata which was decided by the trial Court, but which was not the subject-matter of argument before the lower Appellate Court.