MOHINDER PARTAP Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner who was allotted an evacuee house in Amritsar in 1947 as a displaced person from West Pakistan has filed this petition under Arts. 226 And 227 of the Constitution of India calling in question the orders of the officer of the rehabilitation Department of the Union of India, respondents Nos. 1 to 6, for having enhanced the value of the property without notice to the petitioner and thereby to have prevented its transfer on a permanent basis in petitioner's favour. Shri Panna Lal contesting respondent No. 7 had purchased this property at a public auction held by the Rehabilitation Department after the petitioner's case had been finally decided on 25-11-1961 by the Chief Settlement Commissioner respondent no. 2.

(2.) THE present writ petition was filed more than four years after the final decision by respondent No. 1 when the petitioner's revision filed under Section 33 of the displaced persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act 1954, had been dismissed. The petitioner had no doubt started another round of unnecessary proceedings with the entire hierarchy of officers in that Department but that would not enable him to get over the delay in coming to this Court for exercise of its writ jurisdiction. Another reason why the petition is liable to be dismissed is that the petitioner has wrongly stated that he was the only allottee of the house in dispute. According to the return filed by the respondent and as mentioned in some of the impugned orders which are annexures to the present petition, there were six other allottees besides the petitioner. Respondent No. 7 who had purchased the property in an open auction was one of the allottees. The order, dated 11-11-1960, passed by the Settlement Commissioner respondent No. 3 which became final after the dismissal of the petitioner's revision under Section 33 further records that there were some shops also in this residential unit. The property was, therefore, not allottable to the petitioner according to the rules. The enhancement in the value may appear to have been due to the fact that a residential unit had been converted into an industrial establishment. There is noting on record to suggest that this industrial unit had ever become a factory registered under the Factories act. No reason was given why a copy of the certificate of the Director of Industries which was described to be an enclosure to the petitioner's reply Annexure 'b' could not be filed with the petition.

(3.) SHRI Chawla, the learned counsel for the petitioner, has cited before me Sodhi harbakhsh Singh v. The Central Government, 1962 Pun LR 629 = (AIR 1964 Punj 137); Gurbux Singh v. Union of India, 1965 Pun LR 215; The State of Madhya pradesh v. Syed Qamarali 1967 Serv LR 228 and K. K. Jaggia, Superintending engineer, Haryana P. W. D. Irrigation Department v. The State of Haryana, 1972 serv LR 578. These rulings have no bearings on the facts of our case.