DEV RAJ Vs. FINANCIAL COMMISSIONER REVENUE, PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The writ petition challenges the correctness of the order passed by the Authorities under the Displaced Persons (Compensation & Rehabilitation) Act, 1954 (for short, 'the Act, 1954') and the relevant rules. It is an admitted case that the petitioner had bid at an auction of the property that was put up for sale under the Act, 1954 on 21.07.1982 but the same was challenged at the instance of the 3rd respondent on 05.08.1982. His objection was that he had been actually in possession of the property and there was no due publicity for the sale and he could not, therefore, participate in the auction. This objection filed by the 3rd respondent was rejected by the Settlement Commissioner vide his order dated 20.06.1983. The Settlement Commissioner found that the objection itself had been filed beyond the period of limitation as prescribed under Rule 92 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation & Rehabilitation) Rules, 1985, which prescribes a period of 7 days for filing the objections. The 3rd respondent, who was the objector, appears to have filed a civil suit seeking for an injunction contending that he had been in possession of the property even prior to sale and that his possession cannot be disturbed except by due process. The application appears to have been dismissed and an appeal against the order also resulted in dismissal of the 3rd respondent's claim. After trying his luck in the civil Courts, he has filed an appeal against the order dated 20.06.1983 to the Chief Settlement Commissioner. The Chief Settlement Commissioner set aside the order holding that the sale proclamation itself seemed suspect for the entries relating to the particular khasra numbers appeared to have been tampered and a report Roznamcha of the Patwari did not contain the particular khasra numbers, which were sold. The appellate authority found that there had been no publicity given for the sale and the 3rd respondent, who had been in possession of the property could not have allowed the sale to take place without his participation if due notice had been given for the conduct of the sale. This order was confirmed by the Financial Commissioner when the petitioner had challenged the order of the Chief Settlement Commissioner.

(2.) The counsel for the petitioner contends that the appeal to Chief Settlement Commissioner itself was not maintainable, since under Section 23 of the Act, 1954, the appeal has to be filed within a period of 30 days from the date of order. However, the Chief Settlement Commissioner could entertain an appeal after the expiry of 30 days if, he was satisfied that appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from filing the appeal in time. The said section would require to be reproduced for a proper understanding of the objection of the petitioner:

(3.) This issue of limitation had been taken before the Chief Settlement Commissioner as well as the Financial Commissioner but none addressed it and both of them had held that there had been some corrections and insertions in the proclamation and, therefore, it would sub-serve public interest to allow for sale of the property.