BELI RAM MALHOTRA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE dispute in this case relates to House No. 8936-37, situated in Mohalla Pul bangash Delhi, which is an evacuee property and is double storeyed. The rehabilitation Authorities have valued this house at Rs. 7,083/- and it is therefore, an allottable property as contemplated by Rule 22 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Rules, 1955. In March, 1949, the first floor of this house, along with one room on the ground-floor was allotted to the petitioner by the Custodian. Some time later in the same year entire ground-floor minus the aforesaid one room was allotted to Shri Gopal Singh. It is not disputed that the petitioner, as well as Shri Gopal Singh are displaced claimants and are in occupation of the property as displaced persons. Towards the end of July 1956, the house was ordered to be sold. On 4-8-1956 the petitioner filed an application that the property was an allottable one and instead of being sold, it should be allotted to the petitioner. This application was accepted on the 28th of August, 1956, and the order of sale was set aside. Claims of the petitioner with regard of the property left by him in Pakistan were verified and net compensation payable to him was initially found to be Rs. 8,660/ -. One more urban claim was later verified and by adding the amount of the same to the amount of his other claims the net compensation payable to the petitioner came up to Rs. 9,191/ -. Out of this amount has petitioner received Rs. 8,000/- in cash, with the result that the balance of compensation payable to him came down to a figure of Rs. 1,191/- only. Shri Gopal Singh's claims with regard to the property left by him in Pakistan were verified and compensation payable to him on the basis of the same was assessed at the figure of Rs. 3,202/ -. Towards the end of December, 1957, the Managing officer issued notices both to the petitioner and to Gopal Singh to appear before him for the purposes of having it determined as to which of the two parties was entitled to the transfer of the property in question. On 15-1-1958 both these parties appeared and made rival claims. The petitioner's case was that his net compensation, amounting to Rs. 9,191/-, was nearer to the assessed value of the house and he was, therefore, entitled to its transfer. The claim of respondent No. 3 was that the petitioner having already received Rs. 8,000/- in cash, the compensation payable to him must be taken to be Rs. 1,191/- only which was not nearer to the assessed value of the house than Rs. 3,2,02/- which was the amount of compensation due to him (Gopal Singh ). The Managing Officer passed an order transferring the house to Gopal Singh. In view of the language of Rule 30 he had to determine whether the house was divisible and on this point he came to the conclusion that it was not. The petitioner filed an appeal before the Assistant Settlement Commissioner but did not meet with any success. He then filed a petition for revision to the Chief Settlement commissioner under Section 24 of the Act. This petition was accepted on the 18th of September 1958, on the finding that the property was clearly divisible. It was observed in that order that it was wholly unnecessary to go into the other point whether the compensation of the petitioner was nearer to the assessed value of the house or that of respondent No. 3 Gopal Singh then filed a petition to the central Government under Section 33 of the Act which was accepted on 14-41959. The Deputy Secretary to the Government of India, who decided that application on behalf of the Government, observed in his judgment us under:

(2.) NO one has appeared on behalf of the Union of India to oppose this petition but there is a serious opposition to it on behalf of Shri Gopal Singh, respondent No. 3.

(3.) ON behalf of the petitioner Mr. R. S. Narula has raised the following four contentions before me: