KALA SINGH Vs. FINANCIAL COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Sardar Singh son of Kala Singh (Petitioner) approached the Rehabilitation Authorities for the transfer of property No. 735/1, Panipat. He claimed that he was in possession of this property and he had paid rent on 13th December, 1961 (Rs. 200/-), 2.1.1968 (Rs. 150/-) and 6.3.1968 (Rs. 342/-). The Managing Officer vide order dated December 12, 1968 (P.12) held that Sardar Singh was in unauthorised occupation of the property and allowed its transfer to him at the market price provided the same was within the allotability limits. Kala son Sardar Singh managed to get some rent receipts issued in his name through fraud. Sardar Singh stated before the Settlement Commissioner (Appellate Authority) who heard the appeal that he had no objection if the property is transferred to his father. The Settlement Commissioner vide order dated April 9, 1969 (P.13) held that as the property had already been offered to Sardar Singh the prayer of the petitioner for its transfer could not be acceded to. Kala Singh petitioner then filed a revision which was accepted by the Chief Settlement Commissioner vide order dated August 5, 1969 (P.14). The Chief Settlement Commissioner set aside the orders of the Managing Officer (P.12) and Settlement Commissioner (P.13) and remanded the case with the direction that the property be transferred to the petitioner at the reserve price. The Under Secretary to Government of Haryana, Rehabilitation Department, made a reference under Section 33 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954 (hereafter the Act) assailing the order of the Chief Settlement Commissioner (P.14). The Financial Commissioner exercising the powers under Section 33 of the Act vide order dated September 13, 1974 (P.16) accepted the reference and set aside the order of transfer of the property in dispute in favour of the petitioner and further directed that it be disposed of by auction. The petitioner has assailed the order of the Financial Commissioner P.16 in the present writ.

(2.) The Financial Commissioner has found as a fact that the property in dispute (No. 735/1) was a vacant plot at Panipat. It is also not disputed that the property in dispute was a vacant urban plot to start with. According to the petitioner he has installed a saw-mill over it. The Financial Commissioner has held that the property in dispute shall be treated as an urban vacant site for the purposes of transfer whereas the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that it should be treated as an industrial concern or a shop.

(3.) Rule 22 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Rules, 1955 (hereafter the Rules) contains the classes of acquired property which may be allotted (transferred). This rule reads :