MUNSHI RAM Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and is directed against the order of Mr. M.L. Vijh, Appellate Officer, passed under the Evacuee Interest (Separation) Act, 1951 -hereinafter known as the Act -allowing co -sharer's appeal against the order of the Competent Officer allowing the sitting allottee to purchase the property for Rs. 18,000/ -

(2.) THE property in dispute is house No. 2/1884, situate in Lohiya Bazar, Lashkar (Gwalior). In this property the evacuee -mortgagor's interest was -/7/ - annas and the same is the interest of the non -evacuee mortgagee. The other co -shares of the value of -/4/91/2 pies sold their interest to one Babu by a deed of sale dated the 19th July, 1948. This sale was confirmed by the Custodian Department on the 21st March, 19 -55. The remaining -/4/21/2 pies interest, is evacuee interest and vests in the Custodian Evacuee Property. It would be apparent from this that the property in dispute is a composite property and it is common ground that neither the non -evacuee co -sharers nor the mortgagee are interested in it. Their interest is only that the property be put to auction. The only person who is interested in purchasing the property under Section 10 of the Act was the sitting allottee. He maintained that the value of the property was less than Rs. 10,000/, In the first instance the department fixed the price as Rs. 10,500/ - but that price was later on, at the instance of Babu, raised to Rs. 18,000/ because Babu stated that he was prepared to pay Rs. 18,000/ for the property and that the property be put to auction with Rs. 18,000/ - as his initial bid. It is no doubt true that at no point of time the department assessed the market value of the property but they took the offer of Babu as the basic price of the property, because it was at this price that the sitting allottee was given the option to purchase the same. The sitting allottee refused to purchase the property at Rs. 18,000/ -. In this connection reference may be made to the order of the Competent Officer, Exhibit P. 2, wherein in paragraph 3 it is stated as under:

(3.) THAT the order of Mr. Vijh was based on two grounds, one of which was positively erroneous.