RAJINDER LAL Vs. OM PARKASH MADAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CIVIL writ Petition No. 30 of 1971 and Regular Second Appeals Nos. 852, 853 and 854 of 1970 are being disposed of together as they arise out of an auction sale of three evacuee shops made in favour of Om Prakash Petitioner in the said civil writ, and respondent in the Regular Second Appeals. The said auction sale was subsequently cancelled by the Central Government in exercise of the powers of revision under section 33 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954. This Act would hereinafter be briefly referred to as 'the Act' and unindicated references may be taken to be to the sections of or the rules framed under, the Act.

(2.) SMT. Shanti Devi respondent No. 3 in the civil writ petition, and her husband Ved Prakash (since deceased) were displaced persons who had migrated to his side of the Indo-Pakistan border after the partition of the country in 1947. Ved Prakash was allotted evacuee sops Nos. 27, 28, 29 and 29-A on Railway Road, Nawanshahar in Jullundur District and these shops were ordered to be transferred to him by the Rehabilitation Authorities presumably under Rules 25, at the reserved price of Rs. 8,468/-His verified claim for compensation amounting to Rs. 3,546. 47 was adjusted as a part of the price but a balance of Rs. 1,972/-was sought to be adjusted by associating one Ram Lal who was also described to have a verified claim for payment of compensations. There was, however, some dispute between the Rehabilitation Authorities and the claimant Ram Lal with regard to this entitlement to the compensation amount and there was, therefore, some delay by the Rehabilitation Authorities in accepting the preferred adjustment by Shanthi Devi of the balance of Rs. 1,972/-by means of the association of the claim of Ram Lal. Ved Prakash had in the meanwhile dies and his widow Smt. Shanti Devi had been called upon to make up the deficiency of Rs. 1,972/-in the reserved price. Because of the dispute about Ram Lal's entitlement to the claim compensation, the delay in the adjustment of this balance had led to the cancellation of the transfer in favour of Smt. Shanti Devi, Ram Lal had being agitating separately with the Rehabilitation Authorities with regard to the unjustified objection to his entitlement to the claimed compensation and the case had ultimately been decided in his favour by the Rehabilitation Authorities. In the meanwhile, however, the transfer in favour of Smt. Shanti Devi had been cancelled on the ground that she had failed to arrange for the adjustment of the balance of Rs. 1,972/-in spite of a number of opportunities having been granted to her. After the cancellation of this transfer on reserved price in favour of the displaced person in occupation, the property was put up for auction on 27-10-1967 under Rule 90 and was knocked down to the highest Bidder Shri Om Prakash Civil Writ Petitioner, for a sum of Rs. 18,000/ -. A sale certificate (Annexure 'c' to the writ petition) was later issued in his favour on 12-7-1968. Smt. Shanti Devi had in the meanwhile been challenging the order of cancellation of the transfer in her favour by filing appeals and revision petitions but it was ultimately the Central Government that came to her rescue under Section 33 of the Act on 4-12-1970 vide the impugned order, Annexure 'e'. This was because Ram Lal had also by this time established his claim to the compensation amount which was being offered for adjustment against the balance of the reserved price due from Smt. Shanti Devi under the transfer of property made in favour of her husband under Rule 25. The following extract from the impugned order of Shri Rajni Kant exercising the delegated powers of the Central Government gives the reason for interference at that stage under Section 33 of the Act:-

(3.) IT may appear that Smt. Shanti Devi or her husband had inducted three persons into these shops and these tenants of Smt. Shanti Devi were in possession when Shri Om Prakash, Civil writ petitioner, secured the sale certificate from the Rehabilitation Authorities. Shri Om Prakash therefore, filed suits for possession of the shops against these persons in possession, namely, Rajinder Lal, Ram Sarup and surjit Singh. These tenants are respectively the appellants in R. S. A. Nos. 852 to 854 of 1970 and respondents Nos. 4 to 6 in the civil writ petition. As the names of these three tenants of Smt. Shanti Devi did not appear in the records of the Rehabilitation Authorities, they were not found entitled to the special protection from ejectment under the provisions of Section 29 of the Act. The suits filed by the auction purchaser Om Prakash were, therefore, decreed against these persons and appeals filed by these persons in actual possession had been dismissed. These persons had therefore, filed the regular second appeals in 1970. As the auction in favour of Om Prakash, on the basis of which he had filed the suits for possession has since been cancelled by the Rehabilitation Authorities by an order dated 4. 12. 1970 and this order of cancellation of the transfer has been called in question by Om Parkash in Civil Writ Petition No. 30 of 1971, it was directed by me on 14th May, 1971 that the three second appeals should be listed for hearing immediately after the decision of the writ petition. That is how these three appeals and the writ petition have come up together before me. The counsel for the parties agree that the decision of the second appeals would depend on the decision, one way or the other, of the writ petition. If the order of cancellation of the auction sale in favour of Om Parkash stands, there would be no question of his being in a position to throw out the persons in actual possession of the shops as tenants of the transferee under Rule 25.