GURBACHAN SINGH PARTAP SINGH Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India Gurbachan singh has challenged the order dated the 18th April, 1960, of Shri C. P. Sapra, settlement Commissioner with, delegated powers of the Chief Settlement commissioner (respondent No. 2) whereby the transfer to the petitioner of house no. 48-A, Railway Road, Bhatinda, was set aside. The petitioner went up to the central Government under Section 33 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabiltation) Act, 1954 (Act No. 44 of 1954), hereinafter to be referred to as the Act, and his application was rejected by the Union of India (respondent No. 1 to the petition) vide its letter No. 38 (888) /60-IMP (A) dated the 3rd September, 1960 (copy Annexure 'a' ).

(2.) THE facts stated in the petition are as follows : The petitioner who is a displaced person from West Pakistani was an occupant of house No. 48-A and it was allotted to him on quasi permanent basis on the 9th September, 1955, by the Assistant custodian, Bhatinda District (vide his communication dated the 9th September, 1955, copy Annexure 'h' ). The petitioner continued in possession as allottee ever since. The Managing Officer under Rules 22 and 25 of the Rules made under the act offered the house to the petitioner for Rs. 3797/- (vide copy Annexure 'f' ). The petitioner got Rs. 2565/- of the compensation due to him in respect of his verified claim adjusted op the 28th November, 1958, and the balance of Rs. 1232/- was paid by him oft the 26th January, 1959. The conveyance deed relating to this house was duly executed and completed on the 14th March, 1960, and the petitioner, therefore, claimed that he became absolute owner of this house.

(3.) IT appears that across the street is house No. 48 which had been previously occupied by the District Judge, Bhatinda, and was thereafter allotted to Bibi Amtus salam, Secretary Kasturba Sewa Mandir, Rajpura, as representing Khadi Gram udyog Bhandar (respondent No. 3 ). Subsequently, this respondent made some applications to the Regional Settlement Commissioner, who vide his letter No. 36293 dated the 6th August, 1959, recommended to the Chief Settlement commissioner that the transfer of house No. 48-A in favour of the petitioner be cancelled and the same be sold to respondent No. 3. This recommendation was turned down by the Chief Settlement Commissioner vide his order dated the 9th september, 1952, intimation of which was sent by his letter No. 111 (1089-576)PROF Camp saying that the property had already been transferred to the petitioner as a displaced person. A second representation was made by respondent no. 3 in this connection to the Chief Settlement Commissioner alleging that she had spent some money on the property. That officer again called for the report but vide his order dated the 20th February, 1960, he again turned down respondent no. 3's request for transfer of house No. 48-A. Then a third similar representation was made by respondent No. 3, upon which the Chief Settlement Commissioner issued a notice dated the 17th March, 1960, to the petitioner to show cause as to why the transfer relating to house No. 48-A be not cancelled, and it was then that the Chief Settlement Commissioner passed the impugned order dated the 18th april, 1960.