STATE OF HARYANA Vs. OM PARKASH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant -opposite parties have filed the present appeal against the order dated 19.6.2003 passed by District Forum, Hisar, whereby while accepting the appeal filed by the respondent -complainant, the appellants were directed to pay Rs. 2,000 along with interest @ 10% per annum from the date of deposite till payment. It was further directed that they shall pay compensation amount of Rs. 2 lac to the complainant as additional cost of the plot in question. The compliance of the order was to be done within two months from the date of the order.

(2.) IN order to focus the controversy involved in the present appeal, the facts as can be gathered from the record have to be noticed in detail. A Plot No. 925/23 measuring 322 square yards located at Hisar was sold in open auction on 19.12.1971 to Shri Rameshwar s/o Bhagwan Singh, resident of Hisar for a sum of Rs. 1,400. The purchaser deposited the entire price of the plot and the sale was confirmed by the Settlement Commissioner on 31.1.1972. A sale deed was also executed and issued to the auction purchaser on 24.4.1972. Again a plot measuring 200 square yards remaining part of the disputed plot bearing property No. 925/23 was sold in open auction on 22.1.1979 in favour of Tirath Singh, father of the complainant being the highest bidder for a sum of Rs. 2,000. The said auction was also confirmed by the authority on 15.2.1979. After the realization of the entire sale price, warrant of possession was issued on 7.6.1982 in favour of Tirath Singh relating to the said plot. The Field Kanungo (Mahal) as per report dated 14.12.1983 stated that the plot No. 925/23 min had already been sold to one Smt. Santosh Kumari d/o Hari Om, who had already constructed a Pacca House on the said plot. Taking notice of this mistake, a suo motu reference was made by the Tehsildar (Sales) on 7.6.1988 to the Settlement Commissioner, Haryana for setting aside of the second auction of the said plot in favour of Tirath Singh, which was made inadvertently. The said reference was returned with the objections and after removing the objections, it was again filed. The Chief Settlement Commissioner, Haryana decided the reference vide order dated 6.6.1994 and the Tehsildar (Sales) was directed to refund the amount of Rs. 2,000 to the legal heirs of Tirath Singh as Tirath Singh had expired on 9.3.1983. The order of the Chief Settlement Commissioner, Haryana was not challenged by the legal heirs of the deceased - Tirath Singh. As no alternative plot was allotted to the legal heirs of Tirath Singh despite many available in the vicinity where the plot sold to Tirath Singh was located, the complainant being the son of Tirath Singh invoked the jurisdiction of the District Forum, Hisar with the averments that the mistake was committed by the opposite parties in allotting the wrong number of the plot to his father at the time of auction. While the value of the property as on date has increased to four lacs, therefore, he prayed that opposite parties be directed to deliver the vacant possession of the residential plot bearing No. 925/23 measuring 200 square yards located at Hisar or in the alternative he be allotted another residential plot in the same vicinity and deliver the possession of the same and in case a plot cannot be allotted, he be paid compensation of Rs. 4 lacs on account of actual price of the plot in question along with interest @ 24% per annum.

(3.) THE appellants contested the complaint. The factual position about the allotment of the plot in question to the father of the complainant and its subsequent cancellation as noticed earlier, was not disputed. The order of the Chief Settlement Commissioner dated 6.6.1994 was justified. Under the circumstances of the case, the appellant pleaded that above said order has attained finality and the same cannot be challenged before the District Forum. It was further averred that the land dispute being an evacuee property, jurisdiction of the District Forum was barred under -Sections 36 and 46 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954 and Administration of Evacuee Property Act, 1950 and for that reason the complaint was liable to be dismissed.