KUNDAN LAL AHUJA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner herein is a purchaser under sale deed dated 17 -1 -1962 from one Shri Dina Nath, marked as Annexure P -19 The property, which is the subject matter of the sale is described as all the property known as Central Hotel Stables Shimla, situate near Central Hotel, Shimla and bounded as follows : "East by Common Road (Passage) West by Municipal Road North by Central Hotel Additional House South by Municipal Road situated on Khasra No. 62/3 as shown in the certificate of sale No. 10135 dated 28 -6 -1961 together with all structures buildings and rights attached thereto or reputed or known to be so."

(2.) It is quite obvious from the above document itself that the vendor of the petitioner herein purchased the property under the sale certificate referred to therein. That sale certificate is itself marked as Annexure P -17, in which the property is described by the boundaries in the Schedule. In addition thereto, Khasra number is mentioned as 62/3. That is issued by the District Rent and Managing Officer, Ambala.

(3.) It is the case of the petitioner that all what was purchased by his vendor under the sale certificate referred to above, comprised 818 Sq. yards, known as Central Hotel, Stables and quarters, as the same was the subject matter of auction held by the authorities under the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act The contention is that inspite of the petitioners vendor having purchased 818 Sq. yards and the petitioner having become entitled to the said extent, an enquiry was initiated on a complaint given by one Shri H. D. Sardana and on such enquiry, the Deputy Secretary (Revenue) to the Government of Himachal Pradesh, exercising the powers of Chief Settlement Commissioner under section 24 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954 passed an order on 7th December, 1973 rejecting the claim of the petitioner herein. The said officer found in that order that the petitioner has unauthorisedly occupied an area measuring 337 Sq. yards and 6 Sq. feet out of Khasra No. 490/62 and he should be ejected therefrom. The claim of the petitioner that he had purchased 818 Sq. yards was negatived, A reference was made in that order to a judgment of Subordinate Judge, Kandaghat, on which reliance was placed by the petitioner herein to the effect that the petitioner was entitled to an extent 818 Sq. yards, as claimed by him The Officer pointed out that the said judgment had been upset on an appeal by judgment dated 9th September, 1965 when the parties to the civil proceeding entered into a compromise. By that compromise, the petitioner herein had accepted a much lesser extent about 300 Sq yards The petitioner had challenged the said compromise by Civil Suit No. 221/1 of 1974. He alleged that the compromise was brought about by fraud, coercion and misrepresentation. A specific issue was framed to that suit as regards fraud, coercion and misrepresentation and the Court found that the same was not made out. The Subordinate Judge 1st Class (II), Shimla by his judgment dated 11 -1 -1982 found against the contentions raised by the petitioner. He went into the evidence on record and found that the petitioner had purchased only 257 Sq. yards in Khasra No, 62/3 and his claim that he was entitled to more extent than that, was unjustified. In view of the said finding, the Subordinate Judge dismissed the suit holding that the claim made by the petitioner was unsustainable. The said judgment was challenged in appeal by the petitioner before the District Judge and it was dismissed on merits on 23rd July, 1983 in C.M. A. No. 17 -S/13 of 1982/58 -S/13 of 1982. That was further challenged in the Second Appeal in R. S. A. No. 322 of 1983 in this Court, which was dismissed by judgment dated 28 -3 -1984. Thus, the claim of the petitioner for a larger extent than 257 Sq. yards was found against by the Civil Court and confirmed by this Court in the Second Appeal.