SOHAN LAL Vs. FINANCIAL COMMISSIONER, REVENUE AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Through the present petition, I propose to decide two writ petitions being C.W.P. No. 14534 of 1997 and C.W.P. No. 17632 of 1998, as both these writ petitions are inter-connected and can be disposed of through a common judgment. For the sake of convenience, facts have been taken from C.W.P. No. 14534 of 1997 titled as Sohan Lal v. Financial Commissioner, Revenue, Punjab, Chandigarh and others. Land measuring 04 kanals 05 marlas comprised in Plot No. 168, situated at Basti Sheikh, Jalandhar City is the bone of contention between the warring parties and it has been so for the last over four decades.

(2.) As a result of unfortunate events, which took place in the year 1947 when India and Pakistan were partitioned, the petitioner and respondent No. 2, who were earlier living in Pakistan, got displaced and came to India. To rehabilitate displaced persons like the petitioner and respondent No. 2, the Government of India enacted the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as - the Act). Under the provisions of the Act, on 24.08.1959, the above referred plot in question was put to auction. Respondent No. 2 - Surinder Singh Toor, being the highest bidder, the plot was allotted to him, but after having deposited only l/5th of the auction price on the spot, he failed to make the deposit of the balance auction price. Due to such default on his part, the allotment made in his favour was cancelled. Aggrieved by such cancellation, respondent No. 2 filed an appeal before the Chief Settlement Commissioner. The explanation given by respondent No. 2 was apparently accepted for the non-payment of the balance auction price and resultantly, on the above appeal, vide order dated 30.03.1968, the Chief Settlement Commissioner set aside the order of the cancellation of the land in question and directed respondent No. 2 to make good the shortfall by 30.05.1968. Respondent No. 2 still failed to comply with the order dated 30.03.1968, which resulted in another order dated 02.10.1968 of cancellation passed against him. Against such cancellation order dated 02.10.1968, respondent No. 2 preferred another appeal before the Assistant Settlement Commissioner (having delegated powers of Settlement Commissioner), Jalandhar. However, this appeal was dismissed vide order dated 02.04.1969. The order dated 02.04.1969 dismissing the appeal of respondent No. 2 was challenged by him before the Settlement Commissioner (having delegated powers of Chief Settlement Commissioner) and vide order dated 13.08.1969, this revision petition was also considered and dismissed. Having left with no other remedy, respondent No. 2 approached the Government of India to exercise its residuary powers under Section 33 of the Act. The officer, delegated with the powers of Central Government under Section 33 of the Act, considered the grievance so made by respondent No. 2 and decided to grant another opportunity to respondent No. 2 to make payment of the balance consideration of the plot in question. Accordingly, his petition so filed under Section 33 of the Act, was allowed, the orders impugned were set aside and respondent No. 2 was directed to pay the balance of the sale consideration of the property in question in cash within 15 days from the date of the order, which was dated 06.02.1970. This order was pre-empty in nature and was to the effect that in case, no payment was made by respondent No. 2 within the time so stipulated in the order, his petition would be deemed to have been dismissed. As the order of the officer delegated with the powers of Central Government under Section 33 of the Act was dated 06.02.1970, respondent No. 2 was required to pay the balance of the sale consideration by 21.02.1970. Within this 15 days' time, so granted to deposit the balance sale consideration, no deposit was made by respondent No. 2. He thus made an application to the competent Authority, who had passed the order dated 06.02.1970, to grant him a short extension of time to make good the deposit. The reasons were duly spelt out in the application seeking extension of time. The competent Authority, after considering the reasons so spelt out in the application filed by respondent No. 2 for extension of time, allowed the same and granted 07 more days to make the deposit and thus, now the deposit could be made till 28.02.1970. It is the admitted case between the parties that within this extended period of 07 days so granted, the deposit of the entire sale consideration was made by respondent No. 2 and resultantly, the plot stood restored in favour of respondent No. 2.

(3.) Though the above payment was made by respondent No. 2 on 28.02.1970, but in the integrum, a vital development had taken place. The Department of Rehabilitation, on 17.01.1969, had put the plot in question to another auction (hereinafter referred to as - the second auction). In the second auction, it was the petitioner - Sohan Lal, who emerged as the highest bidder, but before the petitioner could have paid the entire sale consideration for the plot in question, on 28.02.1970, on deposit of the entire sale consideration by respondent No. 2, the allotment of the plot in question, made in favour of respondent No. 2, had been restored. Thus, on 28.02.1970, this fact regarding restoration of the plot in question in favour of respondent No. 2 stood as a wall between the petitioner and the allotment of the plot in question in his favour. Attempting to break such a wall, the petitioner approached this Court under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated 06.02.1970 passed by the competent Authority. This petition was dismissed by a learned Single Judge of this Court on 15.12.1970, against which the petitioner preferred an intra-court appeal under Clause X of the Letters Patent bearing L.P.A. No. 63 of 1971 - Sohan Lal etc. v. Union of India etc. A Division Bench of this Court considered the entire matter in great detail and vide order dated 14.10.1971, allowed the appeal filed by the petitioner. Resultantly, the Division Bench, reversing the order of the learned Single Judge, set aside the order passed by the competent Authority granting extension of time to respondent No. 2 for the deposit of the balance of the sale consideration. As a consequence, the auction sale dated 04.08.1959, in favour of respondent No. 2, was also set aside. The Rehabilitation Department was granted liberty to take further proceedings regarding the auction sale held in favour of the petitioner on 16.01.1969, in accordance with law. Respondent No. 2, aggrieved by the order of the Division Bench of this Court, knocked the doors of the Apex Court to challenge the above referred order passed by the Division Bench. The Special Leave Petition, after being converted into a civil appeal - 1987 (*) R.R.R. 100 : Civil Appeal No. 2062 of 1972 titled Surinder Singh v. Central Government and others, was allowed, vide order dated 26.09.1986, in the following terms:-