MANOHAR LAL Vs. FINANCIAL COMMISSIONERHARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Manohar Lal petitioner applied for the transfer of evacuee urban agricultural land bearing Khasra number 1838 (1 Bigha 10 Biswas) situate at Faridabad; District Gurgaon, as a lessee. His prayer was allowed by the Chief Settlement Commissioner in revision 'Vide order dated April 15, 1966. He was Consequently allowed the transfer of this land for Rs. 2250/-. The petitioner deposit Rs. 450/- and the balance of Rs. 1300/- was agreed to be paid in four annual instalments with first instalment falling due on August 17, 1967, and the remaining three on 17th, of each succeeding year vide agreement dated October 3, 1966, (P. 2). Paragraph 6 of the agreement P. 2 reads:-

(2.) The petitioner paid the first three instalments but made default in payment of the last one of Rs. 450/- which had fallen due on August 17, 1970. In about 1976, the petitioner approached the Naib Tahsildar (Sales), Gurgaon for permission to deposit the fourth and final instalment. The plea raised by the petitioner before Naib Tahsildar (Sales), Gurgaon, was that he had approached the office of regional. Settlement. Commissioner, New Delhi. for permission to deposit the fourth instalment and he was directed to approach the Tahsildar (Sales), Gurgaon, for the purpose: Ha approached the Tahsildar (Sales) but his prayer was not allowed being time barred. The Naib Tahsildar (Sales) recommended to the Chief Settlement Commissioner, (Haryana) that necessary permission to get the fourth and final instalment deposited by the petitioner may be given with interest at the rate of 41/2 per cent for the period the instalment remained due. The Chief Settlement Commissioner (Haryana) vide order dt. June 16, 1977, (P. 4) declined to accept the recommendation, The land was directed to be disposed of according to rules. The petitioner filed a petition under Section 33 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act (hereafter the Act) against the order P. 4 which was dismissed in limine by the Financial Commissioner vide order dated March 10, 1978, (P. 5). The petitioner has assailed the orders. P. 4 and P. 5 in the present writ.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the Chief Settlement Commissioner, Haryana, had been delegated with the powers under Sec: 24 of the Act: The delegated. power under Section 24 did not authorised the Chief Settlement Commissioner (Haryana) to grant permission or to decline the same for depositing the instalments which had fallen due from the petitioner. The impugned order P. 4 passed by the Chief Settlement Commissioner (Haryana) being ultra vires is liable to be set aside. For the same reason, the order P. 5 passed by the Financial Commissioner under Section 33 of the Act cannot be sustained. The Contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner must prevail.