BANWARI LAL Vs. FINANCIAL COMMISSIONER TAXATION PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition is directed against the order of the Financial Commissioner, Punjab, delegated with the powers of the Central Government under Section 33 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954, (hereinafter called as the Act) dated March 14, 1972, filed as Annexure 'E' with the writ petition.

(2.) An urban agricultural plot No. 1008 near Masjid Bhura Khan in Jullundur was purchased by the petitioner in auction held in July 1961 for Rs. 1725/-. Since the petitioner had a verified claim against the compensation admissible to him, earnest money as such was not paid but he executed an indemnity bond in lieu thereof. Later on only a sum of Rs. 743.56/- had been adjusted against his verified claim and for recovery of the balance amount of Rs. 981.44/- a registered notice was issued to him by the Managing Officer on May 21, 1965. The said notice was, however, received back undelivered and it was reported thereon that the whereabouts of the petitioner were not known. The Managing Officer ultimately vide his order dated June 17, 1965, copy of which is Annexure 'B', cancelled the sale in favour of the petitioner and the property was again disposed of by auction on November, 8, 1966 and was purchased by Mehar Singh respondent No. 5. The said bid was confirmed in his favour and the sale certificate was issued on May 16, 1967. The petitioner feeling aggrieved by the action f the Settlement Authorities in disposing of the property which had already been purchased by him filed an appeal before the Authorised Settlement Commissioner which was rejected by the latter vide his order dated April 18, 1969, Annexure 'C' with the writ petition, on the ground that the property had gone out of the compensation pool. The revision petition filed by the petitioner against the said order of the Authorised Settlement Commissioner was rejected by the Chief Settlement Commissioner vide his order dated June 29, 1971(Annexure 'D') on the ground that the petitioner was unable to explain the delay caused by him in filing the appeal when the sale in his favour had been set aside by the Managing Officer on June 17, 1965. A further revision under Section 33 of the Act was filed before the Central Government which was dismissed by the impugned order, dated March 14, 1972, Annexure 'E'. This petition was dismissed on the grounds (1) that the provision of the Indian Soldiers Litigation Act had not been applied to the Tribunal functioning under the provisions of the Act, (ii) that the auction was held in July, 1961, and the petitioner was duty bound to make enquiries from the settlement authorities as to the balance amount payable by him, (iii) that the notice sent to him on the last known address was received back undelivered because he did not make adequate arrangement for the delivery of post to him before leaving for Poona and (iv) that the property had already been disposed of in auction and had been disposed of in auction and had been purchased by Mehar Singh Respondent No. 5. Under these circumstance the learned Financial Commissioner did not like to interfere in the matter after a lapse of four years or so after the reauction. Feeling aggrieved against this order the present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner.

(3.) Mr. H. S. Wasu, Learned counsel for the Petitioner contended that sub-Rule (13) of the Rule 90 of the Rules under the Act contemplates that if the Regional Settlement Commissioner on scrutiny of the compensation application of the auction-purchaser finds that a further sum is due to make up the purchase price, he shall send an intimation to that effect to the auction purchase calling upon him to deposit the balance in cash within fifteen days of the receipt of such intimation.He further referred to sub-rule (5) and (7) of Rule 117 which read as under:-