KARAM CHAND Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A contentious dispute was settled by Shri Tejendra Khanna, IAS, Financial Commissioner Revenue, Punjab as delegatee of the powers of the Central Government under Section 33 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954 vide order Annexure P-15, the subject-matter of challenge in the petition.

(2.) The dispute began when the contesting respondents purchased a piece of urban evacuee agricultural land Jalandhar on 31-7-1959. That was by way of an auction done by the Rehabilitation Department under some press notes. One Harnam Singh approached this Court in CWP No. 24 of 1960 and the concerned press notes and the circular in pursuance thereof as also the auction in favour of the contesting respondents were set aside on 17-3-1961, vide order Annexure P-1. All the same, title by executing a regular conveyance deed was conveyed to the contesting respondents by the Rehabilitation Department. The view of this Court was in consonance with a Division Bench in Bishan Singh v. The Central Government and others, 1961 63 PunLR 75, which went to Supreme Court in an appeal. The Supreme Court set aside the Division Bench judgment and hold that the press notes were valid and the Rehabilitation Department could sell its properties in the manner in which it had. The judgment of the Supreme Court is Surinder Singh v. Central Government and others, 1986 AIR(SC) 2166 .

(3.) In the meantime, in the year 1978, the present petitioner appeared on the scene to make an application for the purchase of the area as sublessee. So a bout began between the auction purchasers and the sub-lessee. They had a cantankerous litigation under various heads. The Chief Settlement Commissioner vide his order dated 14-3-1984 (Annexure P-14) learned in favour of the sub-lessee and remitted the case back for decision of the application of the sub-lessee. The Financial Commissioner, however, in the impugned order learned in favour of the auction purchaser on the strength of the Supreme Court case aforequoted and doubted the bona fides of the sub-lessee of his being on the land, when he had made an application for the first time in year 1978. So the dispute has been settled in favour of the auction-purchaser in this manner.