JIT RAM Vs. KHUSIA RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE facts necessary for deciding this Letters Patent Appeal, which is directed against the order dated 14. 7. 1989 passed by the learned Single Judge, are that the respondent-Khusia Ram, who is a displaced person from West Pakistan filed a claim in his capacity as Karta of Joint Hindu Family for the rural properties abandoned in West Pakistan. His claim was assessed for Rs. 24, 475/ -. By an ex parte order dated 24. 9. 1966, the Settlement Officer rejected the claim of Khusia Ram under Rule 65 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Rules, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules of 1955')- The appeal filed by him under Section 23 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954 was accepted on 13. 7. 1967 by the Settlement Commissioner (exercising the powers of Chief Settlement Commissioner ). The appellate authority directed the Processing Officer to pass necessary orders after hearing Khusia Ram. After keeping the matter pending for almost six years the Processing Officer passed the order dated 19. 5. 1973 and accepted the claim of Khusia Ram. In the meantime, the petitioner purchased 10 pieces of evacuee properties including properties No. 404-D and 407-D situated in Dadri, District Mahindergarh in the open auction held on 19. 5. 1959. Shri Khusia Ram submitted indemnity bond in lieu of the earnest money equivalent of the 10 per cent of the total auction price. This he did in terms of Rule 90 (8) of the Rules of 1973. After about seven years of the submission of indemnify bond by the respondent No. 1, the Managing Officer (Sales) (Urban Land), Jalandhar, issued notice dated 30. 9. 1966 under Rule 65 of the Rules of 1955 requiring him to deposit the entire sale price of the disputed properties. The respondent No. 1 contested the notice on the ground that the appeal filed by him against the order cancelling his claim was pending. However, vide his order dated 17. 11. 1966, the Managing Officer rejected the respondents' plea and ordered resale of the properties. On 13. 2. 1971 the disputed properties were re-auctioned and the highest bid given by the appellant was accepted. The writ petitioners (respondent No. 1 herein) filed objection petitions which were dismissed by the Settlement Officer (Sale) and the Assistant Settlement Commissioner. The Chief Settlement Commissioner rejected the second appeal filed by the respondent No. 1. However, in the revision petition filed by him, the Commissioner and Secretary to Government, Haryana, Rehabilitation Department, reversed the order passed by the Chief Settlement Commissioner and remanded the case to him for fresh decision. After remand, the Chief Settlement Commissioner decided the appeal filed by the respondent No. 1 afresh. Vide his order dated 13. 11. 1973 the Chief Settlement Commissioner again rejected the appeal of respondent No. 1 but at the same time he held that the auction purchasers i. e. appellants should file a revision petition before the Commissioner. That order was challenged by the appellant No. 1 in C. W. P. No. 4266 of 1973. The learned Single Judge accepted the writ petition and directed that the petition filed by the respondent No. 1 under Section 33 shall be decided afresh by the competent authority. In compliance of the direction given by the High Court, the Financial Commissioner heard the matter afresh and dismissed the appeal filed by the respondent No. 1 on 6. 11. 1986.

(2.) THE learned Single Judge who heard the writ petition filed by the respondent No. 1 expressed the view that the order dated 17. 11. 1966 passed by the Managing Officer (Sales), Jalandhar, was void and as the other orders were based on the order of Managing Officer, the same were also liable to be nullified. He further held that, subsequent auction held 13. 2. 1971 was illegal and without jurisdiction. The learned Single Judge further held that the acceptance of the highest bid given by Khusia Ram in respect of the disputed properties became final as soon as he filed indemnity bond in form Appendix-XXX-A. The learned Single Judge concluded his order by making the following observations: " A valid sale of the properties in dispute having already taken place in favour of the petitioner 12 years earlier on 19th May, 1959, the properties in dispute were obviously not available for sale a second time on 13th February, 1971. It does not stand to reason how could the Rehabilitation Authorities order the properties to be resold without setting aside the previous sale in respect of the petitioner or any of the grounds set out in Rule 92 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Rules, 1955. Illegally or wholly without jurisdiction, second re-auction sale, conducted on 13th February, 1971 cannot be termed either as legal or legally enforceable because respondents 5 and 6 were the highest bidders at it and have thereafter deposited the entire sale price. Nullity would remain a nullity for all times to come, in spite of their alleged bona fide auction aforesaid.

(3.) AMONGST the Rehabilitation heirarchy also Assistant Settlement Officer, Ambala, in his order dated 16th January, 1963 (Annexure P-6) Managing Officer (Sales) Jalandhar in his order dated 12th May, 1969 (Annexure P-7) and the Commissioner and Secretary to Government Haryana, in the Rehabilitation Department in his order dated 19th June, 1973 (Annexure P-11) tried to see reason and act in conformity with law but it so appears that the higher echelons therein overruled them by placing reliance upon Annexure P-5 as due authority permitting resale of the properties in dispute on 13th February, 1971. The basis of their findings in Annexures P-8, P-9 and P. 14 having fallen through on account of being a nullity and also the resale held on 13th February, 1971 are all quashed. In result the writ succeeds and is allowed with costs. " 3. First contention of Shri Hemant Kumar is that the learned Single Judge has seriously erred in invoking Rule 92 of 1955 Rules to sustain the allotment made in favour of respondent No. 1. He submitted that the offer of purchase made by the respondent No. 1 came to an end because he failed to pay the earnest money. The second contention urged by Shri Hemant Kumar is that the learned Single Judge has committed a patent illegality by setting aside the impugned orders ignoring the fact that the order dated 17. 11. 1966 was not under challenge. On the other hand, Shri P. C. Mehta argued that the learned Single Judge has rightly invoked Rule 92 for holding the order dated 17. 11. 1966 passed by the Managing Officer (Sales) was voidab-initio and, therefore, the cancellation of the bid given by the respondent No. 1 was not legally sustainable. 4. After having given our serious thought to the rival contentions, we agree with the learned Single Judge that the order dated 17. 11. 1966 passed by the Managing Officer (Sales) (Urban Land), Jalandhar cancelling the sale of properties in favour of the respondent No. 1 was liable to be declared as nullity and the learned single judge has not erred in upholding the claim made by the respondent No. 1.