DALJIT RAI OBERAI Vs. THE FINANCIAL COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY REHABILITATION DEPARTMENT, HARYANA AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal filed under Clause X of the Letters Patent is directed against order dated 18.5.2005, passed by the learned Single Judge in CWP No. 774 of 1985 dismissing the writ petition filed by the petitioner -appellant. The following short question of law has been raised in this appeal: -

(2.) THE petitioner -appellant has alleged that in the year 1957 out of the auctioned land Sarv Shri Basant Lal, Sardari Lal, Ram Parkash and Bal Raj sons of Hari Kishan Dass (respondent Nos. 3 to 6 in the writ petition) (for brevity, 'the allottees') had by misrepresentation and fraudulently secured allotment of urban land measuring 2 bighas 14 biswas within municipal limits of Rohtak and other urban agricultural land in lieu of their claim of rural land. Permanent rights were also conferred upon them.

(3.) AFTER a lapse of about six years of passing of cancellation orders dated 25.7.1968, the allottees filed a revision petition in the year 1974, before the Authorised Chief Settlement Commissioner for setting aside sale certificate dated 16.1.1970, which was issued in favour of the auction purchaser, without impleading respondent No. 13 and the petitioner -appellant as party respondent. It has been alleged by the petitioner -appellant that stay order was passed against Shri Satpal -respondent No. 13 but no notice whatsoever was issued to the petitioner -appellant. It has further been alleged by the petitioner -appellant that the case was not properly defended by Shri Satpal respondent No. 13. The sale certificate in favour of the petitioner -appellant and respondent No. 13 was cancelled by the Chief Settlement Commissioner vide order dated 30.5.1975 (P -9). It has been asserted that whole sale could not have been set aside as the allottees at the most could have claimed some right in respect of land measuring 2 bighas 4 biswas only and not the whole land involved in the sale certificate (P -5). The Chief Settlement Commissioner has set aside the sale certificate primarily on two grounds (i) when the property was put to auction it did not form part of compensation pool and, therefore, the auction was void -abinitio; and (ii) at the time when the land was put to auction no rules were framed for disposal of urban agricultural land, which were framed for the first time vide notification dated 17.11.1960 and in that regard reliance was placed on a Division Bench judgment of this Court rendered in the case of Sohan Lal v. Central Government, : 1972 PLR 749.