KHAN SINGH Vs. FINANCIAL COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ of ceretiorari quashing the order (Annexure F) passed by the Financial Commissioner (Taxation), Punjab, Chandigarh exercising the powers of the Central Government under Section 33 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954 (hereinafter called the Act).

(2.) The petitioner came to India as a displaced person from West Pakistan and settled at Jullundur as occupant of evacuee property, House No. ES-237, Makhdoompura, Jullundur City. He was transferred the same under the provisions of the Act and the rules made thereunder. He paid the price thereof and became its owner. As is plain from the plan (Annexure G) appended with the petition, there is a street on the western side of this property as also on the southern side. From its north-western corner, the house of Moti Ram, respondent No. 3, commences, on a slanted line making a triangular piece of land intervenes between the two houses. The petitioner claims that a door and ventilators from his house open towards that triangular piece of land which measures only one marla i.e. about 25 square yards. The placement of the doors and windows by the erstwhile evacuee owners confirmed the belief in the petitioner that the said vacant plot was part of the property No. ES-237 which he had purchased. Some dispute started with regard to the vacant site since the District Rent and Managing Officer realised that the Valuation Department had omitted to add the value of the said site while framing the valuation of House No. ES-237. The petitioner associated in the enquiry held for the purpose. The Managing Officer then vide order dated 2nd March, 1969 (Annexure A) ordered that the plot be transferred to the petitioner on its assessed price with usual surcharge of 20 per cent. It was also ordered that the rent of the plot should also be assessed.

(3.) Respondent No. 3 Moti Ram had purchased the house owned by him from one Manohar Lal on the 28th May, 1955. He entertained an impression that the vacant site belonged to him. He made an application pointing it out to the Managing Officer and praying that the plot be restored to him. The Managing Officer inspected the spot and vide his order dated 19th June, 1968 (Annexure B) declined the prayer. Moti Ram was unsuccessful in his pursuits even up to the Court of the Chief Settlement Commissioner, who, vide order dated 25th February, 1972 (Annexure D) declined to interfere in the matter but at the same time observed that if Moti Ram considered that the plot in question was his property and not an evacuee property, then he should approach the Custodian General for the purpose of getting it declared as non-evacuee property. It may be mentioned that the petitioner had under a Court judgment, obtained restraint order against Moti Ram from interfering with his possession. Moti Ram then filed a further revision under Section 33 of the Act which was allowed by respondent No. 1 vide order Annexure F on 23rd December, 1972 upsetting the orders passed by the officers below and ordering that the plot in dispute be disposed of by auction, which order is under challenge in this writ petition.