RULDU RAM Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Lachhman Dass, respondent No. 2, being a displaced person was allotted land in village Allipur Khair, Tehsil and District Hissar in lieu of the land left by him in Pakistan. It was later on found that he had been allotted excess land to the extent of 3.4 S.A. The allotment of the land to the extent mentioned above was cancelled by the Managing Officer and his appeal against the cancellation order also failed. He subsequently put in an application that since he was in possession of the land and according to the prevalent instructions, he was entitled to purchase the cancelled land on reserve price. His application was not decided and meanwhile the cancelled land was put to auction on 6th September, 1962. Petitioner Ruldu Ram gave the highest bid of Rs. 5605/-, and thereafter he deposited Rs. 1405/- as earnest money. The purchase application made by respondent No. 2 was subsequently allowed and the respondent was intimated that he should deposit a sum of Rs. 2850/-, which amount was deposited by him on 21st May, 1963. Meanwhile the sale made in favour the petitioner was confirmed on 6th April, 1963. The petitioner applied for the possession of the land and for obtaining orders for depositing the remaining auction money, but this was never done and the petitioner was not asked to deposit the remaining part of the amount as meanwhile the purchase application of respondent No. 2 had been allowed. A reference was then made to the Chief Settlement Commissioner by the Managing Officer for setting aside the sale in favour of the allottee. The Chief Settlement Commissioner accepted the reference and set aside the sale in favour of the allottee. The copy of the order of the Chief Settlement Commissioner dated 11th May, 1966, is Annexure 'B' with the writ petition. Lachhman Dass, respondent No. 2, filed a petition under Section 33 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954, which petition was accepted by the delegatee of the Central Government and it was held that Lachhman Dass was entitled to purchase land on the reserve price and a direction was issued that a sum of Rs. 1405/-, deposited by the petitioner as earnest money, should be refunded to him.

(2.) After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner I am of the opinion that there is no merit in this petition. No fault can be found with the impugned order passed by the delegatee of the Central Government on 21st January, 1967, copy of which is Annexure 'C' with the writ petition. It cannot be disputed that in case of cancellation of the excess allotment, where the allotment was not secured by fraud etc., the allottee, who was in possession of the cancelled land was entitled to purchase the same on the reserve price. The respondent No. 2 promptly made an application for the purchase of the land and if during the pendency of the said application, the departmental authorities put the land to auction, respondent No. 2 cannot be made to suffer for the action taken by the departmental authorities. The respondent No. 2 deposited the whole amount as far back as in May, 1963, and he continued to be in possession of the land, whereas the petitioner deposited only the earnest money and thereafter he did not deposit the remaining amount as the departmental authorities started proceedings for setting aside the same. It is well settled that a party cannot be made to suffer for the irregularities committed by the authorities. In view of what has been stated above, no fault can be found with the impugned order.

(3.) For the reasons recorded above, there is no merit in this writ petition and the same is hereby dismissed. However, there will be no order as to costs.