KRISHNA KUMARI Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In an auction sale of plot nos. 73- 74, Block No. 27, Vishwas Nagar, Shahdara. Delhi, held on 27th December, 1958, by the Managing Officer appointed under Displaced Persons (Compensation & Rehabilitation) Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), the highest bid of the petitioner Smt. Krishna Kumari, for Rs. 32751- was accepted. A sum of Rs. 4951- towards the part payment of the sale consideration was adjusted from compensation application of the petitioner. After the possession of the plots was handed over, the petitioner constructed a set of two rooms and the boundary well. Since then she is in occupation of this property.

(2.) The grievance of the petitioner is that in spite of repeated requests and reminders, the respondents are neither accepting the balance price nor issuing the sale certificate. The petitioner now learns that the respondent is experiencing difficulty in finalising the sale, inasmuch as they have come across an order, declaring Smt. Harmuji Khanam to be nonevacuee, having the right to plot no. 73 only. In order to resolve the controversy, the respondents have sought the advice from the Ministry of Law. The opinion of the Law Department is that the respondents can go ahead with finalising the sale of the plots in question in favour of the petitioner. In spite of this opinion, the respondents are not moving in the matter. Left with no other option, the petitioner has sought the issuance of writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction requiring the respondents to accept the balance sale price, finalise the sale deed and/or issue the certificate of sale in accordance with the provisions of the Act.

(3.) While issuing Rule, the Division Bench noted that the petitioner has not impleaded Mst. Harmuji Khanam the alleged owner in whose favour an order under Section 16 of the Act has been passed. The petitioner was directed to implead Mst. Harmuji Khanam, as. respondent no. 4. The order was complied with. Notice was issued to her but she remained unserved for sufficient long time. Ultimately, she was served by substituted service by affixation on the last known address and also by beat of drum. In spite of service, none has cared to put in appearance on her behalf.