RAM RATTAN KAPUR Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, Ram Rattan Kapur, has impugned the order passed by the Central Government under Section 33 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954 (hereinafter called the Act) in these writ proceedings.

(2.) Shop No. 4868 in Katra Subhash, Chandni Chowk, Delhi, has admittedly been in occupation of the petitioner, Ram Rattan Kapur, for some years. There is also a chabutra abutting on this shop which has been in occupation of respondent No. 3, Dharma Singh since 1948. The petitioner and Dhanna Singh are displaced persons and the shop and the chabutra in their possession are evacuee property. Both the shop and the chabutra came to be valued together for allotment purposes at Rs. 10,439/-and were put up for auction as their value exceeded Rs. 10,000/-. Under Rules 22 and 23 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Rules, 1955, all acquired evacuee property which is not allottable "shall ordinarily be sold." The property which is ordinarily to be allotted is enumerated in Rule 22 as:- "(a) any residential property in the occupation of a displaced person, the value of which does not exceed ten thousand rupees; (b) any shop in the occupation of a displaced person, the value of which does not exceed ten thousand Rupees; X X X X" Under Clause (2) of Rule 22, "a portion of a building of an acquired evacuee property which has no in dependent access shall not, unless the Central Government otherwise directs be allottable."

(3.) The aggregate value of the shop and the chabutra was taken into consideration by the Managing Officer in making an order that it should be put up for sale by auction under Rule 23. The shop and the chabutra were put up for auction on 14th of July 1958 and the petitioner was the highest bidder, his bid being for Rs. 18,100/-. Dhanna Singh, feeling aggrieved from the order of the Managing Officer, who directed the shop and the chabutra to be put up for auction, preferred an appeal under Section 22 of the Act. The appeal came up for hearing before the Assistant Settlement Commissioner, New Delhi (Shri R. N. Malhotra). Dhanna Singh's principal contention was that the property could easily have been separated and should not have been sold in one lot. Relying on the report of the Assistant Valuation Officer that Shri Dhanna Singh could be allotted the portion of which he has been in occupation if he chose to erect a wall, the Assistant Settlement Commissioner, by his order dated 17th of September 1958 directed Shri Dhanna Singh to file his consent to the proposed erection by 19th of September 1958. On 19th of September 1958, the Assistant Settlement Commissioner dismissed the appeal of Dhanna Singh. As a good deal of argument has been addressed on the question whether or not this order was based on Dhanna Singh's consent, it would be well to reproduce its contents: