INDER SINGH Vs. FINANCIAL COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is a displaced person from West Pakistan and, in lieu of the property left by him there, he was allotted the property in dispute in Phillaur, district Jullundur. He was transferred this property in lieu of compensation due to him against his verified claim under Rule 25 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Rules, 1955 (hereinafter called the Rules). In the petition it was stated that the property was a shop, but in the return it was pointed out that it was a residential house and in the replication it was admitted by the petitioner that the property was a residential property. So it will be referred to as the 'house' hereinafter. This house was transferred to the petitioner for a sum of Rs. 5,699/- against which a sum of Rs. 2,705/- was adjusted on account of compensation due to him. The balance amount of Rs. 2,994/- was to be paid in 7 equated instalments of Rs. 428/- each commencing from April 1, 1959. The petitioner entered into an agreement with the Department on September 16, 1958, but a copy of that agreement has not been filed on this record and, therefore, the terms thereof cannot be ascertained. The petitioner deposited a sum of Rs. 428/- on August 12, 1959, and another sum of Rs. 78.63 Paise on account of interest on September 24, 1959. He defaulted in the payment of the first instalment and the transfer of the house in his name was cancelled by the Managing Officer. An appeal against that order was accepted by the Settlement Commissioner and the petitioner was allowed to make payment of the delayed instalment. The second instalment was not paid with the result that the transfer was once again cancelled. He filed an appeal which was accepted and he was allowed to deposit the subsequent instalments due.The petitioner did not pay the instalments for a number of years, and after a lapse of about 6 years the Department gave him a notice on July 4, 1967, directing him to produce the challans regarding the payment, if any, made by him. Since the petitioner did not send any reply, the transfer of property in his name was cancelled by order dated May 9, 1967, by the Managing Officer. Against that order, the petitioner filed an appeal, which was rejected by the Authorised Settlement Commissioner on March 27, 1968. His revision petition was accepted by the Authorised Chief Settlement Commissioner on July 26, 1968, and the order of cancellation of the transfer of property in his favour was set aside. The case was remanded to the Managing Officer with the direction that he should have heard the petitioner before resuming the property. It was further observed by the learned Authorised Chief Settlement Commissioner that it would be for the Managing Officer to decide whether or not there was any justification for condoning the delay in making the payment of the balance price. In the meantime, the property was put to auction on May 9, 1967, and was purchased by respondent 3, Smt. Krishna Wanti, for Rs. 13,600/-. After hearing the petitioner, the Managing Officer allowed him to deposit the balance purchase price due from him which he deposited on December 15, 1969. Respondent 3 filed an appeal before the Settlement Commissioner that she should have been impleaded as a party by the Managing Officer before allowing the petitioner to deposit the balance price of the property since she had become the purchaser thereof. Her appeal was accepted by the Settlement Commissioner and the case was sent back to the Managing Officer with the direction that respondent 3 should also be made a party. The Managing Officer then heard both the parties and held that no proper notice was issued to the petitioner before the property was resumed and since he had made the payment of the full price in the meantime, the deed might be issued in his name. The sale of property in favour of respondent 3 was set aside without forfeiture of earnest money. This order was passed on October 31, 1970. Against that order, respondent 3 filed an appeal before the Settlement Commissioner (Appeals) which was rejected on February 25, 1971. Against that order, a revision petition was fileed by respondent 3 which was accepted by the Chief Settlement Commissioner, Punjab, on January 10, 1972. The petitioner then filed a petition under Section 33 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954, which was rejected by the Financial Commissioner (Taxation), Punjab, exercising the powers of the Central Government under that Act on November 30, 1972. The present petition is directed against the orders of the Chief Settlement Commissioner and the Financial Commissioner referred to above. The official-respondents have not chosen to file any return or to produce the record. Respondent 3 has filed her return opposing the petition.

(2.) The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the transfer of the property was made in favour of the petitioner under Rule 25 of the Rules and if the petitioner failed to pay any instalment due on the property, it should have been recovered from him under Section 21 of the said Act and that there is no provision in the Act or the Rules authorising the authorities under the Act to cancel the transfer of the property and to resume the same. Section 21 expressly states that any sum payable to the Government in respect of any property in the compensation pool may be recovered in the same manner as an area of land revenue. The transfer of property was made in favour of the petitioner in satisfaction of his verified claim and, therefore, unless an express provision is made authorising the authorities under the Act to cancel such transfer of property, respondents 1 and 2 had no jurisdiction to direct that the property should be resumed or re-auctioned. It was laid down by their Lordships of the Privy Council in Eshugbayi Eleko v. Officer Administering the Government of Nigeria and another, 1931 AIR(PC) 248:-

(3.) This dictum has been approved by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in many cases. In the instant case, the officers of the Government have not filed any reply to support their action on the basis of any law giving them, authority to resume the property which was transferred in favour of the petitioner. I am, therefore, constrained to hold that the action of respondents 1 and 2, cancelling the transfer of property in favour of the petitioner, was without authority and jurisdiction and they had no right to reauction the same. Respondent 3, therefore, was not clothed with any title to the property merely because it was sold to her in an illegal auction. This petition is accordingly accepted and the orders of the Chief Settlement Commissioner and the Financial Commissioner under Section 33 of the Act, which have been imputed in this petition, are quashed. Since the petition has not been defended by respondents 1 and 2 and respondent 3 made her bid in the auction bona fide, I leave the parties to bear their own costs. Petition accepted.