SANSAR CHAND MAHAJAN SON OF SHRI JANTU MAL MAHAJAN RESIDENT OF MOHAL SAROL Vs. CHIEF SETTLEMENT OFFICER, REHABILITATION, HP SECTT. SHIMLA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE are appeals arising from the decisions of the Chief Settlement Commissioner (Rehabilitation) in case no. 21/2001 -CSC dated 3.1.2004 and no. 22/2001 -CSC dated 3.1.2004. These are being taken up together because the legal issues are the same and the learned counsel in both the cases are the same who gave common arguments.

(2.) THE facts of the cases, in brief, and as made out from the records, are that the Chief Settlement Commissioner received complaints from the Sub Divisional Officer (Civil) -cum -Settlement Officer (Sales), Kangra that in 1996 the Naib Tehsildar (Sales) -cum Managing Officer; Kangra, sold evacuee land to Shri Sansar Chand Mahahan comprised in khasra no. 7040 measuring 34.6 sq. yards in Chamba town fraudulently and without following procedures to the present petitioner for a consideration of Rs. 12500/ -. (The complaint itself is not in the file). Similarly land comprised in khasra no. 1281/1096, 1104 and 1105 kita 3 measuring 8 -11 bighas in mauza Haripur, Pargana Rajnagar, Tehsil Chamba was sold to Shri Chain Singh at a meager price of Rs. 10,000/. The Chief Settlement Commissioner felt that the amounts received were not commensurate with the price of the land keeping in view their location, that the Naib Tehsildar (Sales) had not followed the proper procedures applicable and also that the action of the Naib Tehsildar (Sales) was detrimental to the interest of the State.

(3.) IN their petitions, the petitioners have alleged that the impugned orders suffer from material irregularities and illegalities. Further they have alleged that the court below has lost sight of the fact that since a lot of improvements had been made as a result of whih the market value of the land had increased manifold. 'They would therefore prefer to pay the market value of the land in question in 1996 and not in 2004 i.e. the date of the passing of the Commissioner's orders. The petitioners have requested that the impugned order may be modified so that the market value of the land as prevailing in the year 1996 is charged from them and further that the amount already paid by them should be adjusted therefrom.