AMAR NATH Vs. FINANCIAL COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners make a grouse of the order of the Settlement Officer (Sales)-cum-Assistant Sales Commissioner exercising the powers of the Settlement Commissioner dated 3.8.1971 Annexure P. 3 vide which he set aside the order of Naib Tehsildar (Sales) directing the sale of two evacuee plots No. 19 and 20 in Shahbad town in favour of their predecessor-in-interest Amar Nath. Amar Nath's revision against this order was dismissed by the Chief Settlement Commissioner Haryana on 31.5.1972 vide Annexure P. 2. His further petition under Section 33 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954 was also dismissed by the Financial Commissioner and Secretary to Govt. Haryana, Rehabilitation Department, on 21.11.1978 vide Annexure P. 1. It is not in dispute that order Annexure P. 2 was passed by the Settlement Commissioner while dealing with the objections filed by the Municipal Committee, Shahbad against the transfer of these plots in favour of Amar Nath. This Officer not only dismissed the objections of the Municipal Committee as totally meritless but also cancelled the order passed by the Naib Tehsildar (Sales) on 28.6.1971 Annexure P. 4.

(2.) The primary contention of their learned counsel is that this order of the Settlement Commissioner (Annexure P. 3) is totally without jurisdiction as no provision of law entitles him to cancel order of the Naib Tehsildar (Sales) suo motu and that too without any proper notice to the person to be effected. The counsel further maintains that the upholding of this order by the two higher authorities vide orders Annexures P. 1 and P. 2 does not in any way change this legal position. I find merit in these submissions particularly when the learned counsel for the respondents is not in a position to refer to any provision of law under which the Settlement Commissioner could suo motu cancel the order of transfer passed in favour of Amar Nath. All that is being urged by the learned counsel for the respondents is that the Settlement Commissioner could pass the impugned order Annexure P. 3 in exercise of his powers under sub-rule (4) of rule 92 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Rules, 1955. This sub-rule says that the Settlement Commissioner may his own motion set aside any sale under this Chapter if it discloses that any material irregularity or fraud which has resulted in a substantial injury to any person has been committed in the conduct of sale. Chapter 14 of which Rule 92 forms part only lays down the procedure for the sale of property in the compensation pool through auction or tender. The learned counsel however, is not in a position to contend that the present order of transfer (Annexure P. 4) was passed in favour of Amar Nath under this Chapter 14 of the Rules. Rather it is clear from the reading of the orders Annexures P. 3 and P. 4 that these plots were sought to be transferred to Amar Nath in the light of certain Government Instructions which entitled an unauthorised occupant of a built up property to purchase the same. The case of Amar Nath before the Naib Tehsildar (Sales) was that these two plots formed part of a bigger plot in which certain constructions had been raised by him and he was actually residing there.

(3.) I am thus satisfied that the Settlement Commissioner had no jurisdiction to set aside the order of the Naib Tehsildar (Sales) suo motu. The affirmance of this order by the superior authorities vide orders Annexures P. 1 and P. 2 cannot be taken to bestow any jurisdiction on this officer, that is, the Settlement Commissioner. I, therefore, set aside order Annexure P. 3. As a natural consequence of this, the other two orders Annexure P. 1 and P. 2 upholding order Annexure P. 3 too are set aside. No costs. Petition accepted.