DHARAM CHAND Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE acquired evacuee plot in dispute was put to public auction by the rehabilitation Authorities on April 17, 1964 and purchased by respondent No. 5 who gave the highest bid of Rupees 1,250/- for the same. One day before the auction Dharam Chand petitioner paid a sum of Rs. 46/- to the Rehabilitation authorities on account of compensation for use and occupation of the said plot for the period commencing from December 15, 1947, and ending on March 31, 1963 at the rate of 0. 25 P. per month. The petitioner, who claims to be a dhobi, and therefore, to be a member of a backward class as notified by a Punjab State government on July 11, 1958 (Annexure 'a'), preferred an appeal against the auction of the plot and claimed that he was entitled to the transfer of the plot to himself at its reserved price as he had put up some construction on it before january 1, 1963 and that he had also paid rent for use and occupation of the same up to that date, and even for a few months thereafter. The Appellate Authority by its order dated July 16, 1964 remanded the case to the Tahsildar (Sales) for fresh inquiry and report regarding the construction alleged to have been made on the plot by the petitioner. The Tahsildar (Sales) inspected the plot on October 5, 1964, and reported that the construction on the plot was of a temporary nature comprised of a 'chhappar' standing on wooden stays. It was further noted by the tahsildar that the petitioner had provided a door to that 'chhappar' only recently. The petitioner's appeal was thereafter heard by the Assistant Settlement commissioner in exercise of the powers of Settlement Commissioner delegated to him. The Appellate Authority, however, dismissed the appeal by its order dated november 18, 1964 (Annexure 'd'), on the ground that the construction raised by the petitioner (which according to the auction-purchaser, who appeared before the appellate Authority, had been raised one day before the auction overnight) did not entitle the petitioner to the transfer of the plot at its reserved price. Shri J. M. Tandon, the Chief Settlement Commissioner, Punjab, by his order, dated January 20, 1965 (Annexure 'e') dismissed the petition filed by the petitioner before him for revision of the order of the Appellate Authority. He held that the acquired evacuee plot having been put to auction under Rule 90 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Rules, 1955 (hereinafter called the 1955 rules), the sale could not be set aside merely to facilitate the petitioner to purchase the plot at its reserved price except under Rule 92 of the 1955 Rules on the finding of any material irregularity or fraud in the conduct of the sale. The learned Chief Settlement Commissioner also took notice of the fact that even otherwise the Assistant Settlement Commissioner (the Appellate Authority) had held that the petitioner had no case for the purchase of the plot at its reserved price.

(2.) THE petitioner then went up to the Central Government under Section 33 of the displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act (44 of 1954) (hereinafter referred to as the Act ). A copy of that petition is Annexure 'f' to the writ petition. Without calling the petitioner and without hearing him, the Joint Secretary to the government of India rejected the said petition by his order, dated March 11, 1965 (Annexure 'g') on the ground that the petitioner could not claim the transfer of the plot in question as of right, particularly when the same had been auctioned. It was in the above mentioned circumstances that the present petition was filed under articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution for quashing the above mentioned orders of the Rehabilitation Authorities, and for directing those authorities to transfer the plot in question to the petitioner at its reserved price.

(3.) BY its order, dated April 26, 1965 the Motion Bench stayed the dispossession of the petitioner during the pendency of the writ petition. The petition has been contested by the Rehabilitation Authorities as well as by Prem Chand respondent no. 5, the auction-purchaser of the plot. In the return filed on behalf of respondents 1 to 4, it has been stated that according to the record received from the Regional Settlement Commissioner, Jullundur, the plot had been shown to be in the occupation of one Shiv Charan Dyal son of Gudar Mal, Goldsmith. It has also been reiterated that the petitioner had not raised any substantial construction on the plot, and that the construction raised by him was of a temporary nature comprised of a chhappar standing on wooden stays. It has been emphasized that since the petitioner had no legal right to the transfer of the plot at its reserved price, the plot had been rightly disposed of by public auction. It has been denied that any instructions had been issued under R. 87 of the 1955 Rules by the Chief settlement Commissioner which might entitled the petitioner to purchase the plot at its reserved price. It has been mentioned that it was in pursuance of the executive instructions that the State Rehabilitation Department had sold some urban evacuee plots to their occupants at the reserved price on which the latter had raised substantial construction before January 1, 1963. It has also been stated that since no case for setting aside the sale had been made out under Rule 92 of the 1955 Rules, the Chief Settlement Commissioner was not bound to set aside the sale. Prem Chand respondent No. 5 has even denied the factum of the petitioner being a dhobi or a member of a notified backward class. The rest of the averments in his written statement are on the same lines as in the return of the rehabilitation Authorities.