DIN DAYAL Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, who is a displaced person from West Punjab, was admittedly allotted land in village Sewan, Tehsil Kaithal-now Tehsil Guhla, District Kurukshetra-in lieu of land left behind in Pakistan by him. Admittedly, he occupied House No. 482 in that village in the year 1948-49 and continued to be in possession thereof till the filing of the present petition wherein he has challenged the order of Naib Tehsildar, Kaithal, dated 27.3.1973, annexure P.3, and that of Additional Settlement Officer-cum-Assistant Settlement Commissioner, Haryana, Ambala, dated 2.5.1973, Annexure P.4 (wherein the order, Annexure P.3, was sustained) and the order, Annexure P.5, passed in revision by the Deputy Secretary, Rehabilitation-cum-Settlement Commissioner, Haryana, Chandigarh on 28.1.1974, (whereby the revision was rejected and the orders, Annexure P.3 and P.4, were confirmed) on the ground that the aforesaid impugned orders were on the face of then clearly illegal and were passed in violation of Government instructions issued from time to time regarding the disposal of the package-deal property. One such set of instructions annexed to the replication is Annexure P.10). Admittedly, the house in question was originally an evacuee property which stood transferred to the State Government from the Central Government as a result of deal which goes by the name of package deal.

(2.) It has been alleged in the petition that the house was in a dilapidated condition when it came to be occupied by the petitioner; that he spent considerable amount on making it habitable, and that in the Register Sikni the price thereof was assessed originally at Rs. 15,500/-. The aforesaid figure apparently later on was crossed and the price mentioned was Rs. 30,000/- and in the column meant for remarks it was mentioned that the property was excluded from allotment and was reserved. It was further stated that the petitioner came to know of the aforesaid change in the price in the register during the pendency of the consideration of his application for transfer in the month of March 1973; that although he had applied for its transfer in the year 1962, the Department did not dispose of the said application despite repeated reminders, with the result that he had to apply again on 16.3.1973 for the transfer of the aforesaid house at reserve price; that the said house was put to auction on 27.3.1973 and in the auction the highest bid was only of Rs. 10,000/-; that the Naib Tehsildar, by his order dated 27.3.1973, Annexure P.2, declined to accept the highest bid and ordered that since the amount of the bid was low, because the petitioner was in occupation of the house, so the house be got vacated from him and thereafter be put to auction; that on the same date, he took up for consideration application of the petitioner for transfer of the said house and dismissed the same stating that since the petitioner was not willing to pay the reserve price of the house in question which from Rs. 30,000/- had been increased to Rs. 45,000/- by the Department, so his application deserved to be dismissed and the house, therefore, be put to open auction. An appeal against the aforesaid order was dismissed by order dated 2.5.1973, Annexure P.4, and a revision against that order met the same fate and this led to the filing of the present petition.

(3.) In the return filed, on behalf of the respondents, by Shri Sarnagat Singh, Under Secretary to Government, Haryana, Rehabilitation Department, Chandigarh, it was not denied that the petitioner was not the allottee of the land in the said village or he was not in the occupation of the house in question. It was, however, denied that any application for its transfer was made by the petitioner earlier in the year 1962, as alleged. It was further denied that the original price of Rs. 15,500/- was changed to Rs. 30,000/- to deny the transfer of the house to the petitioner.