SUDARSHANA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Briefly, the facts of the present writ petition are that property No. B-X-815, situated at Ludhiana, was put to auction on January 29, 1957, by the Managing Officer. The highest bid was of Rs. 21,100/-. The auction purchaser did not pay the full amount and consequently the auction was set aside. Thereafter, it was put to auction nine times but nobody came to bid. Ultimately, it was decided by the Rehabilitation Authorities to sell the property by inviting tenders under Rule 91 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Rules, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules'). The posters for inviting tenders were published in English, Hindi, Punjabi and Urdu. The advertisements related to 161 other properties in addition to the aforesaid property. The advertisement was also made in different newspapers. The petitioner offered a tender for Rs. 4,000/- in respect of the abovesaid property. The amount of Rs. 800/- was sent alongwith the tender form as required by the authorities. Her tender was accepted by the Regional Settlement Commissioner vide order dated July 17, 1969. She was directed to deposit the balance price which she did within the prescribed period. The house was in occupation of respondents 4 to 7. They filed a revision petition before the Chief Settlement Commissioner against the sale in favour of the petitioner. The same was rejected on February 16, 1970 (Copy Annexure D) on the ground that no objections whatsoever under the provisions of Rule 92 of the Rules challenging the same had been made by them. At the same time, he, exercising his powers under Section 24 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954, (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') set aside the sale on the ground that the amount of tender was very low and that the transaction was not just and fair. The petitioner filed a petition under Section 33 of the Act before the State Government. It was rejected by the Financial Commissioner exercising the powers under that Section on February 12, 1971 (copy Annexure 'E'). The petitioner has challenged the orders of the Chief Settlement Commissioner and the Financial Commissioner, dated February 16, 1970 and February 12, 1971 (copies Annexures 'D' and 'E') respectively.

(2.) The main ground of attack of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner was not given adequate opportunity to defend the case when the auction in her favour was set aside by the Chief Settlement Commissioner. Section 24(1) of the Act authorizes the Chief Settlement Commissioner to call for the record of any proceeding under the Act for the purpose of satisfying himself as to the legality or propriety of any such order and may pass such order in relation thereto as he thinks fit. Section 24(3) says that no order which prejudicially affects any person shall be passed under Section 24 without giving him a reasonable opportunity of being heard. The question that arises in the present case is as to what is an adequate opportunity. An adequate opportunity, in my opinion, would mean that a person against whom an order is going to be passed, should be apprised of the grounds before passing of the order. The purpose behind it is that if he wants to say anything in defence thereof and produce any evidence in support of his contention, he may be able to do so. In case, he is not given that opportunity in that way, it cannot be said that a reasonable opportunity had been given to that person. In this view, I am fortified by the observations of this Court in Hari Chand and others v. Chief Settlement Commissioner, Jullundur and others, 1967 CurLJ 321. In that case, no show cause notice was given to the petitioners before setting aside the order of the Assistant Settlement Commissioner nor they were supplied with any grounds for quashing the order. In such circumstances, it was observed that no adequate opportunity was given to them. A similar matter also came up before their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Jaswant Singh Saluja and another v. Chief Settlement Commissioner, New Delhi and another, 1971 AIR(SC) 748. That case was under the Displaced Persons (Claims) Supplementary Act, 1950. Section 5 of that Act was in similar terms as Section 24 of the present Act. Their Lordships of the Supreme Court observed as follows :-

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner sought to raise other grounds. In view of the fact that the case has to be decided afresh by the Rehabilitation Authorities in view of the aforesaid observations after giving opportunity to the petitioner, I did not allow him to raise those grounds.