SURINDER SINGH Vs. STATE OF H.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS judgment shall dispose of these two petitions under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India as both the petitions arise out of a common order of the Financial Commissioner cum Secretary (Relief and Rehabilitation) also exercising the revisional jurisdiction under the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954, hereinafter referred to as the "Act". Relevant facts.

(2.) LATE Sardar Santokh Singh, father and predecessor in interest of the petitioner Surinder Singh, being displaced person, purchased the property known as "31 Cosy Nook Estate", Shimla in an auction held on September 11, 1954 by the District Rent and Managing Officer, Ambala. This property was an Evacuee Property and was placed in the Evacuee Property Pool having been vested in the Central Government under Sub section (2) of Section 12 of the Act. The property was purchased by Sardar Santokh Singh for a sum of rupees 52,000/ . The boundaries of the property sold in auction were described as follows:

(3.) IT appears a dispute regarding Khasra Number 600 B arose between Shanti Devi, successor in interest of Santokh Singh and owners of "Fountain Bleaue", namely, Gopal Mohan and others. The dispute ultimately landed up in this Court in Regular Second Appeal No. 418 of 1990 and this Court by a Judgment dated October 7 , 1994 held that Khasra Number 600 B comprising veranda and stairs case is no part of Cosy Nook Estate. This Court took a view that after the issuance of the sale certificate of the property sold in public auction, the Officer/Authority under the Act became functus officio as the property ceases to be evacuee property and therefore no corrigendum could have been issued in the sale certificate issued to Sardar Santokh Singh including therein Khasra Number 600 B. As a result, ownership of Sardar Santokh Singh, predecessor in interest of the petitioner, was confined to the property as included in the sale certificate Annexure Pl. Grievance of the petitioner.