BHOORSINGH PALASINGH Vs. KESUMAL ARATMAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this petition the petitioner challenges the order of respondent No, 5 dated June 2, 1972 whereby respondent No. 5 purported to set aside the conveyance or the sale deed in favour of the petitioner dated June 28, 1967 which was executed by respondent No. 4 vs. the Administrator and Managing Officer, Ulhasnagar. This petition can be disposed of on a very short point and that point is as to whether respondent No. 5, the Authorised Chief Settlement Commissioner appointed under the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) has power or jurisdiction to cancel or set aside the sale deed. The question arises as under:-

(2.) The petitioner who is a displaced person having migrated to India and settled at Ulhasnagar occupied Room No. 1 in Barrack No. 705 at Ulhasnagar Camp No. 3, which was built by Government and formed part of the Compensation Pool under the Act.

(3.) On November 9, 1959 the petitioner entered into an agreement of sale with the Managing Officer on behalf of the President of India to purchase the said room. The price was settled at Rs.1872.25 which was payable by installments. The price was settled by the Government of India on the basis of the area of the property. The said property consists of built portion and open plot situate to the north. The conveyance deed as per the agreement of sale was actually executed by the Managing Officer on June 26, 1967 on behalf of the President of India. In the conveyance deed, the area was mentioned as 50 sq. yds. as being the area which was sold and transferred to the petitioner. The area of 50 sq. yds. consisted of a built room and an open plot attached to it 35 sq. yds. and 15 sq. yds. respectively. It appears that the petitioner made an application to the Assistant Administrator and Managing Officer, for demarcating the said property. That Officer appointed a surveyor who after visiting the site made a report showing the open plot to the north and demarcated and delivered possession of the property to the petitioner. The petitioner was thereafter granted a demarcation letter dated Sept. 13, 1967 showing that 15 sq. yds. of open plot was to the north of the built portion and that was the property which was covered by the sale deed. Since the respondents Nos. 1 to 3 had their shops on the north of the said property and according to the petitioner they had started to construct permanent structures on the northern portion of the property on Jan. 26, 1967 and that act according to the petitioner was an act of trespassing on the part of respondents Nos. 1 to 3, the petitioner filed Civil Suit No. 82 of 1967 in the Court of the Civil Judge, J. D. Kalyan, against respondents Nos. 1 to 3 for possession and injunction and ad interim relief's.