SUKHMOHINDER SINGH Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The facts giving rise to the petition are as under :

(2.) Respondent No. 6, Prahlad Singh purchased property No. 92/5, Patiala, in an auction held on 15th May, 1961 making the highest bid of Rs. 12,175/-. 10% of the auction bid was deposited by him at the spot as earnest money. The confirmation of the sale was conveyed to him on 21.8.1961 and he was required as per Rules to pay the remaining purchase price within 15 days thereafter. Respondent No. 6, however, instead of depositing the balance price in cash adopted the alternative permissible course and associated the compensation claim of one Thakari Bai and requested the department to adjust that claim towards the sale price. The department thereafter issued a sale certificate to respondent No. 6 on 16.1.1962. It appears that there was some complaints regarding the genuineness of the claim of Thakari Bai and on investigation, it was found that in fact there was no claim standing in her name. The department accordingly lodged a report with the police and the petitioner as also some of the employees of the department were tried and convicted under various sections of the Indian Penal Code and on the proceedings having become final upto the High Court level, respondent No. 6 underwent a term of imprisonment as well.

(3.) It appears from the pleadings that when the department found that the claim of Thakari Bai was in fact not available to respondent No. 6, it moved for the cancellation of the sale certificate issued to the said respondent but simultaneously gave him another opportunity to make good the shortfall. The respondent, however, declined to pay the balance amount and insisted that the claim of Thakari Bai being genuine required to be adjusted. This would be clear from a joint reading of annexures P-9 to P-13. Keeping in view the recalcitrant attitude of respondent No. 6, the Deputy Chief Settlement Commissioner accordingly vide orders, dated 27.12.1962, annexure P-14, to the petition, cancelled the conveyance deed as also the sale certificate issued in favour of the respondent and remitted the case to the subordinate authorities, observing that the order would not affect the right of Prahlad Singh to get the amount of the association adjusted from the claim of Thakari Bai provided the association was proved to be genuine. This rider was apparently made because at that stage, the matter regarding the compensation claim of Thakari Bai was sub judice and no final decision had been taken thereon. It is further clear from the written statement filed by the official respondents that some time in the year 1977, on the criminal proceedings having finally terminated, respondent No. 6 made an application before the authorities for finalising the case of the disputed property in his favour after allowing him to deposit the remaining amount of Rs. 10957.50. It appears that the deposit was actually made and the petitioners who had been allotted the disputed property vide annexure P-5 way back in 1955, thereafter moved the authorities that the permission to deposit the balance amount should not be allowed to respondent No. 6, at this belated stage and for the additional reason that a fraud had admittedly been committed by him on the department. Vide annexure P-2 dated 13.9.1978 the competent authority declined to interfere, and ordered the acceptance of the balance amount. Aggrieved by the order aforesaid, the petitioners filed an appeal before the Settlement Commissioner, Punjab, who set aside the order annexure P-2 vide annexure P-3 dated 22.2.1979 and directed that the property in dispute be disposed of according to Rules. Respondent No. 6 thereafter filed a revision-petition before the Chief Settlement Commissioner, who, vide his order dated annexure P-4 declined to interfere. The matter was thereafter taken by respondent No. 6 under section 33 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation & Rehabilitation) Act, 1954 (hereinafter called 'the Act') to the Financial Commissioner, Punjab, exercising the powers under the section. This petition was allowed vide order dated 28th November, 1980, annexure P-1 to the petition which has now been impugned before me.