MEHAR SINGH SETHI Vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, Mehar Singh Sethi, purchased plot No. 177-L in Model Town, Hoshiarpur, for a sum of Rs. 1960 through a private deal on the 28th November, 1951, from the Deputy Commissioner, Hoshiarpur, and at the time of sale he paid Rs. 98/- as earnest money, the amount being five per cent of the purchase price. According to the terms of the sale, the balance was to be paid in 30 equated half-yearly instalments with interest at three per cent, per annum in terms of section 6(2) of the East Punjab Refugees Rehabilitation (Buildings and Building Sites) Act, 1948. In order to clear his dues, the petitioner filed his verified claim for Rs. 21,358 and it was expected that the balance of the amount would be adjusted against the claim. Somehow, the claim submitted by the petitioner could not be adjusted except to the extent of Rs. 69.50 and the case of the petitioner is that it was only in December, 1962, that he was informed about this for the first time. He was required to pay the balance of the amount within a week. This not having been done, some more notices were issued, and when the petitioner made an application for accepting payment in instalments, this application was disallowed by order dated the 27th August, 1964. By this order the petitioner was again required to make payment on or before the 12th September, 1964. There again being a default on the part of the petitioner, the plot was resumed by order Annexure H dated the 22nd December, 1964, and information about this was subsequently conveyed to the petitioner through letter dated the 15th April, 1965. The order of resumption was passed under Section 11 of the Act. Being dissatisfied with this order the petitioner filed a revision petition which was dismissed by the Commissioner vide order dated 22nd February, 1966, and this led to the filing of the present petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution.

(2.) The petition was contested on behalf of the respondents, and though it is accepted that the plot was sold to the petitioner and that a verified claim was submitted by him for adjustment against the price but it is denied that no communication was made to the petitioner for ten years. On the other hand, it was brought out that in the interval between 1951 and 1962 some communications were addressed to the petitioner asking him to deposit the amount. As regards the order of resumption, it is not disputed that it was made through order Annexure H dated the 22nd December, 1964.

(3.) On behalf of the petitioner, two arguments have been raised. The first contention is that no notice under Section 11 was issued to the petitioner and the order of resumption was, therefore, passed behind his back and was illegal and void, being violative of the principles of natural justice. The second contention is that it is violative of Article 19(1)(f) and is, therefore, void and ineffective against the rights of the petitioner.