SARDHA RAM Vs. CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE relevant facts which led to the filing of this writ petition are not in dispute. It is the common case of both sides that the petitioner was entitled to purchase the acquired evacuee urban agricultural land in dispute and that Chapter V-A of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Rules 1955 (hereinafter called the Rules) applies to the land in question. It is also the admitted case of both sides that the petitioner is entitled to purchase the agricultural land in question under the proviso toe Rule 34-C of the Rules. The only dispute relates to the valuation of the said land and the resultant amount which the petitioner has to pay to the Rehabilitation Authorities. By order Annexure 'a' dated September 28, 1966, the Managing Officer fixed the price of the land at Rs. 1500/- per Kanal. Petitioner's appeal against that order was partly allowed by Shri S. N. Bahl, Assistant Settlement Commissioner (in exercise of his delegated powers of Settlement Commissioner) on October 23, 1967 (Annexure 'b' ). The price of Khasra number 1708/923 was maintained at Rs. 1500/- per Kanal on the ground that the same had not been disturbed by the Chief Settlement Commissioner in earlier proceedings while remanding the case for revaluation of other Khasra numbers. In the remaining Khasra numbers, the price had been brought down to Rs. 1250/- per Kanal. The petitioner had claimed before the appellate authority that the valuation should be fixed at Rs. 400/- per Kanal at which other lands had been transferred to different persons. That contention of the petitioner was repelled by the Settlement Commissioner in the following words:-

(2.) THE claim of the petitioner is that the value of the land had to be fixed as on the date of the allotment and not of the date on which the valuation is sought to be worked out. Petitioner claims to have been in possession of the land since 1952 but has in any case, been found to be in lawful possession thereof since 1955, that is, before January 1, 1956. According to the petitioner, he is not liable to pay the market value of the land as in 1966 but the price at which it could be valued in 1955. It was on that account that he had referred to previous sales which were admittedly held at about Rs. 400/- per Kanal. As Annexure 'f' to the petition, a list of persons, along with copies of the sale-deeds, to whom the land had been transferred at the rate of Rs. 400/- per Kanal or even less has been filed by the petitioner. The sales enumerated in Annexure 'f' are of 1961 to 1965.

(3.) THE writ petition has been contested on behalf of the Rehabilitation Authorities. It has been admitted therein that the petitioner has been in cultivating possession of the land since Kharif, 1955. It has, however, been denied that land comprised in any Khasra number had been evaluated at the rate of Rupees 400/- per Kanal for transfer to the petitioner. It has also been denied that the entire area including that with the petitioner was assessed at Rs. 400/- per Kanal or less. It has been complained that the petitioner is responsible for the present state of affairs as he has been delaying his case by filing appeals and revisions. It has been repeatedly stated that the price of the land has been correctly fixed after taking into account all valid considerations. Reference has then been made to the agreement executed by the petitioner for the purchase of the land in Khasra No. 1401/939 and to the part payment already made by him in pursuance of that agreement in respect of that part of the land measuring 11 Kanals 16 Marlas.