SOBHA RAM SETHI Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution challenging the validity of the orders dated 24-11-1955, 31-3-1960 and 21-5-1960 passed by the Regional Settlement Commissioner, respondent No. 3, Shri G. B. Lalvani, Chief Settlement Commissioner, respondent No. 2, and the Under Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Rehabilitation, respectively.

(2.) According to the allegations of Sobha Ram Sethi, petitioner, there are three independent contiguous single storeyed houses bearing Municipal Nos. 1104, 1105 and 1106 within the limits of the Municipal Corporation of Jabalpur in Madhya Pradesh. They originally belonged to one Mohd. Umar, who, subsequently, became an evacuee. Each of these houses is built on an area of approximately 180 square yards and consists of four rooms, a kitchen, a bath, a lavatory, a verandah on the back side and a verandah in front, besides a courtyard at the back. Each house is enclosed by separate walls and has independent access on both sides on which it opens into the streets and is separately assessed to municipal tax. Houses Nos. 1104 and 1106 are in occupation of two separate non-displaced persons. In the year 1952/1953, house No. 1105 (hereinafter referred to as the house in dispute) was allotted by the Custodian of Evacuee Property to the petitioner at Rs. 18/- per month and he has been regularly paying rent for the same. In or about 1955 the house in dispute was acquired by the Central Government under Section 12 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act (44 of 1954) hereinafter referred to as the Act) and became its property. Since then the petitioner was treated as an allottee of the Central Government in the Ministry of Rehabilitation. Subsequently, the petitioner applied for the payment of compensation against his verified claim. He was entitled to the payment of the said compensation by transfer of the house in dispute to him and by recovery of the balance of the price of the said house, if any, by instalments, according to the provisions of Rule 30 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Rules 1955 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules). The value of the house in dispute was Rs. 7,000/- and it was, therefore, an allottable property with-in the meaning of Rules 22 and 30. Houses Nos. 1104 and 1106 were, however, non-allottable properties, although they were of the value of less than Rs. 10,000/- each, because they were in occupation of non-displaced persons. The Regional Settlement Commissioner, Nagpur, issued a notice that several acquired properties, including houses Nos. 1104 and 1106, were to be auctioned on 23-11-1955 onwards. In the said notice wherever more than one house were to be treated as a single property or were to be sold as one unit, the said properties had been listed as one item. Houses Nos. 1104 and 1106 had been listed under separate items, whereas the house in dispute being an allottable property, was not included in the sale proclamation. On 24-11-1955, respondent No. 3, came to the spot for the sale of houses Nos. 1104 and 1106. There he orally directed that the house in dispute may also be sold along with houses Nos. 1104 and 1106 as one single unit. Thereupon, the petitioner and his attorney protested against the said order on the ground that these were three separate houses, but despite this respondent No. 3 put all the three houses to sale as one unit and they were purchased by Bul Chand, Hotu Mal and Dharam Dass, respondents 4 to 6. On 28-11-1955 objections were filed against the said sale and a prayer was made for setting aside the same and for transfer of the house in dispute by allotment. No. hearing of the objection petition was granted but the same was dismissed on 13-12-1955 by the Regional Settlement Commissioner. On 22-12-1955 an appeal was filed to the Chief Settlement Commissioner against the order dated 24-111953 passed by the Regional Settlement Commissioner, by which the house in dispute had been put to auction. No intimation of any date of hearing of the appeal having been received from the Office of the Chief Settlement Commissioner, a number of reminders were sent by the petitioner. Ultimately, his attorney appeared personally before Shri L. J. Johnson, the then Chief Settlement Commissioner, at New Delhi on or about 6-4-1956 in connection with the appeal. The said officer heard him and ordered the stay of confirmation of the sale in favour of respondents 4 to 6. These stay orders were duly communicated to respondent No. 3 by Shri Mehar Singh Chadha on behalf of the Chief Settlement Commissioner on 6-4-1956 (annexure 'D'). He was also requested to intimate the circumstances under which the house in dispute was auctioned without any advertisement. On 30/311957 the petitioner received a notice from the Office of the Chief Settlement Commissioner to appear before him at Nagpur on 9-2-1957 for the hearing of his appeal. Shri L. J. Johnson heard the parties and reserved judgment. No orders seem to have been passed by Shri Johnson as the relevant file, admittedly, is not available. The petitioner came to know that respondent No. 3 had represented to the Chief Settlement Commissioner that all the three houses Nos. 1104, 1105 and 1106 were situate within the limits of the Cantonment Board, Jabalpur, which would not allow them to be treated as separate houses, because they were originally owned by one person. Since this representation was made behind the back of the petitioner and was not based on facts, the petitioner procured certificates from the Cantonment Board to the effect that the houses in question were not situate within their jurisdiction. He also obtained a certificate from the Municipal Corporation of Jabalpur indicating that the said properties were situated within the limits of the Corporation and were assessed separately as independent units. He tried to produce these documents before Shri M. L. Vijh, Deputy Chief Settlement Commissioner, New Delhi, from whom he received a notice for the hearing of his appeal on 14-7-1959 at Jabalpur. Shri Vijh, however, refused to take the same (annexures 'E' and 'F') because he did not hear the appeal on the ground that the auction-purchasers (respondents 4 to 6) were not present before him. The petitioner then sent duplicate copies of these documents to the Office of the Chief Settlement Commissioner. Subsequently, when he did not receive any notice for the hearing of the appeal, he sent reminders to expedite its hearing Ultimately, he received a notice dated 10-21960 from respondent No. 2 fixing the appeal on 26-2-1960 at New Delhi. On inspection of the file through his counsel at Delhi, the petitioner came to know that the Chief Settlement Commissioner had already passed an ex parte order against him four months before the hearing of the appeal and the same was based oh a report sent to him by respondent No. 3 and the said orders had even been communicated to respondent No. 3 on or about 18-11-1959. At this the petitioner protested and pointed out to the Chief Settlement Commissioner that under these circumstances the hearing of the appeal by him would be meaningless. Respondent No. 2, however, observed that the previous order of the Chief Settlement Commissioner was not a judicial order. He then heard the parties and reserved judgment. No decision having been communicated to him, the petitioner sent several reminders and when no reply was received by him, he sent his attorney to Delhi on 2-5-1960. He came to know that respondent No. 2 had rejected the appeal by his order dated 31-3-1960 (annexure 'K'). In the said order it was directed that the same be communicated to the parties. It was however, never done so. Therefore, on 9-5-1960 the petitioner submitted an application under Section 33 of the Act to the Central Government, which was dismissed on 21-5-1960 without giving any notice to the petitioner and hearing him. Against this, the present writ petition was filed on 25-5-1960.

(3.) Learned counsel for respondents 1 to 3 has raised a preliminary objection that this writ petition should fail on the short ground that the petitioner had no locus standi to file the same, because the question whether the property is saleable or allottable is to be determined by the officers appointed under the Act. In the present case, it has been found as a fact that the property was saleable and this finding could not be agitated by the petitioner in these proceedings. It was also submitted that it was found by the officers appointed under the Act that the entire building consisting of Nos. 1104, 1105 and 1106 was one property and not three, as alleged by the petitioner. This finding, again was not justiciable and could not be reversed by invoking the extraordinary powers of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. Since the property was found to be saleable, the learned counsel contended that it could not be transferred to the petitioner and this is the relief which he was claiming in the present petition and the same could not, therefore, be given to him.