SURJAN SINGH UPPAL Vs. CHIEF SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This order will dispose of three Civil Writ Petitions Nos. 1758 (Surjan Singh Uppal v. Chief Settlement Commissioner, Haryana and Others), 1757 (Surjan Singh Uppal v. Chief Settlement Commissioner and Others) and 1756 of 1972 (Surjan Singh Uppal v. Chief Settlement Commissioner, Haryana and Others) as common points are involved therein.

(2.) Plot No. 91 measuring 6 Marlas in Patti Suba Akbar Pur (Ambala City) was an evacuee property. It was put to auction on September 28, 1971, and Surjan Singh petitioner gave the highest bid for Rs. 2,800/-. Jai Ram Sethi respondent in civil writ No. 1758 of 1972 submitted an application to the Settlement Officer (Sales) on October 12, 1971, stating there that he had just come to know of the auction conducted on September 28, 1971, and he was ready to pay Rs. 3,500/- for it. The Settlement Officer dismissed this application on November 10, 1971, being time barred and simultaneously confirmed the sale of the land in favour of Surjan Singh petitioner. Jai Ram Sethi feeling aggrieved by the order of the Settlement Officer approached the Chief Settlement Commissioner (Rehabilitation). In the meantime, Atma Singh respondent in Civil Writ No. 1757 of 1972 and Kanwar Chand (now deceased) in Civil Writ No. 1757 of 1972also approached the Chief Settlement Commissioner against the order of the Settlement Officer confirming the sale of plot No. 91 in favour of Surjan Singh. The petitions filed by Jai Ram Sethi, Atma Singh and Kanwar Chand were disposed of by the Chief Settlement Commissioner vide consolidated order dated May 9, 1972 (Annexure C) in Civil Writ No. 1758 of 1972. The sale by auction in favour of Surjan Singh was set aside on the ground that a copy of the notice of sale had not been affixed at a conspicuous part of the property to be sold and further the property was auctioned at a distance of one mile from the place where it was situate with the result that many persons remained in dark about the sale of the property which had caused substantial injury. The land was ordered to be reauctioned after observing all the formalities prescribed by law. It is against this order that Surjan Singh has filed the three writ petitions detailed above.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that in view of the fact that the Settlement Officer confirmed the sale in favour of the on November 10, 1971, and in consequence thereof issued a sale certificate in his favour, the plot in dispute ceased to be an evacuee property with the result that the Rehabilitation authorities were rendered functus officio qua it. The order passed by the Chief Settlement Commissioner on May 9, 1972 (Annexure C in Civil Writ Petition No. 1758 of 1972) is thus a nullity having been passed without jurisdiction. I see no force in this contention. Jai Ram Sethi and others moved the Chief Settlement Commissioner against the very order of the Settlement Officer confirming the sale in favour of Surjan Singh petitioner. The fact that in pursuance of the order confirming the sale a sale certificate was issued in favour of the petitioner would not per se render the Chief Settlement Commissioner functus officio in the matter of deciding the petitions filed before him. The order passed by the Settlement Officer would continue to remain subject to the jurisdiction of the Chief Settlement Commissioner irrespective of the fact that a sale certificate was issued in favour of the petitioner in pursuance thereof.