PARAMJIT SINGH Vs. FINANCIAL COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Paramjit Singh and three others in the present petition filed by them under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India seek issuance of a writ in the nature of Certiorari so as to quash the orders passed by respondents Nos. 1 and 2, Annexures P-4, P-5 and P-7, dated 22nd of November, 1971, 23rd of April, 1974 and 25th of January, 1983. Brief facts of the case need a necessary mention.

(2.) Plot bearing No. 29 in Gehlewal, Ludhiana, was out to auction on 19.2.1966. Manna Singh, father of the petitioners, was the highest bidder as he had offered an amount of Rs. 1,09,500/-. Vide notice Annexure P-1, Managing Officer directed Manna Singh to deposit the amount within the period stipulated therein. In consequence of not depositing the amount, allotment of the plot aforesaid was cancelled vide order dated 15th July, 1966. It requires to be mentioned here that as per proviso to rule 19(2) of the Displaced persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Rules, 1955, maximum time limit of depositing the auction amount is 15 days. Being aggrieved against the cancellation of the plot, Manna Singh carried an appeal before the Settlement Commissioner who extended the time for depositing the amount upto 31st August, 1966. Still aggrieved, Manna Singh carried a revision before the Chief Settlement Commissioner and was once again favoured by further extending time upto 31.10.1966 vide order dated 4.10.1966 (Annexure P-2). Thereafter, Manna Singh filed an application praying therein that he may be permitted to associate some others with him in the sale as others were also having verified claim. This application was allowed and an order was passed directing delivery of possession to Manna Singh on 29/30.12.1970 (Annexure P-3). It is at this stage that respondents Nos. 3 and 4 who were in actual physical possession of the plot became active as earlier to this they were not in the knowledge of the auction proceedings and it was for the first time that their possession was threatened. They filed a civil suit on 22.2.1971 which was, however, dismissed on 6.4.1971 on the ground of lack of jurisdiction of the Civil Court in the matter. Having lost on the question of jurisdiction, they were advised to challenge the orders culminating into auction in favour of Manna Singh and the proceedings conducted thereafter. To be precise, they challenged the order dated 4.10.1966 and dated 29/30.12.1970 vide which time for depositing the auction money was extended by the authorities constituted under the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954 and the rules framed thereunder. This course was adopted by respondents Nos. 3 and 4 by filing revision before the Chief Settlement Commissioner Mr. J.S. Qaumi, who allowed the same vide order dated 22.11.1971 (Annexure P-4) and the auction sale in favour of Manna Singh and all the proceedings thereafter were set aside. Aggrieved Manna Singh carried a revision before the Financial Commissioner exercising the powers of the Government under Section 33 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954, which was dismissed vide order dated 23.4.1974 (Annexure P-5). Still not satisfied, Manna Singh filed an application for reviewing the order dated 23.4.1974, but was once again unsuccessful as the same too was dismissed on 25.1.1983. During the pendency of the review application, the property in dispute was transferred to respondents Nos. 5 to 9, vide orders Annexures AR.4, AR.5 and AR. 6. Obviously, after dismissal of the review application, petitioners who were sons and daughters of Manna Singh, referred to above, filed the present petition challenging the orders Annexures P-4, P-5 and P-7, as mentioned in the earlier part of the judgment.

(3.) It requires to be mentioned that at the time of motion hearing, what impressed the Bench was that between the same parties, an L.P.A. was pending where the main point was as to whether Mr. J.S. Qaumi has powers of Chief Settlement Commissioner to deal with the matter in dispute. The order passed by the Motion Bench reads as follows :-