- (1.) The present writ petition is directed against the order dated 10th January, 1995, passed by Deputy Chief Settlement Commissioner, U.P.-cum-Member, Board of Revenue, U.P. at Lucknow, as well as its subsequent order dated 6th April, 1995, rejecting the restoration application of the petitioner. The order impugned dated 10.1.1995 has been passed, allowing revision filed under Section 24 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954, whereby sale certificate dated 14.6.1968, issued in favour of four persons, including the petitioner, has been cancelled, and a direction has been issued to issue a fresh sale certificate in favour of deceased Tota Mal, for the reason that he alone was the auction purchaser. The order dated 10.1.1995 is reproduced: "Heard the learned counsel for both the parties and perused the record of the case. The sale certificate dated 14.6.1968 incorporating the names of the alleged co-purchasers Sri Amrumal S/o. Sri Manumal, Sri Khem Chand S/o. Sri Amru Mal and Sri Kakkoo Mal S/o. Sri Amru Mal is cancelled as the bidsheet shows that they were not the purchasers. Revision is allowed. The managing officer, Varanasi is directed to issue and the certificate of sale in favour of the revisionist, who are the heirs of the deceased Tota Mal, who was the auction-purchaser."
(2.) A restoration application was filed by the petitioner alleging that the order dated 10.1.1995 was passed upon a revision, which itself was highly belated, as it was filed after 23 years, and without there being any order for condonation of delay, the same was allowed ex parte, by a cryptic order, without hearing the petitioner. Various other grounds were pressed for restoration of the proceedings.
(3.) While rejecting the restoration application, learned Member of the Board of Revenue took note of the fact that a previous restoration application was filed by one Kakoo Mal on 18.1.1995, which was rejected by the following orders on 18.1.1995: "Heard the learned counsel at length. The plea is that Kakoo Mal S/o. Amru Mal defendant No. 4 in the revision did not have notice of the hearing and the proceedings may be restored. The revision had been decided on 10.1.95 setting aside the sale certificate issued by the managing officer, Varanasi on 14.6.1966 incorporating the names of the defendants as co-purchasers of the evacuee property. The ground for this decision is that the revisionist was the sole successful auction bidder. Subsequently, it seems that the defendants, who were related to the revisionist had applied to the managing officer, Varanasi that they have no objection if their claim are adjusted against once purchase money to be paid by the revisionist. They also stated that they had no objection, if the sale certificate is issued in favour of the revisionist. It is also noticed that the wrong sale certificate was issued 1st years after the auction. Under the circumstances the defendants have no legal right of getting their names to be recorded in the sale certificate as co-purchasers. If there is any civil claim, they can enforce the same through the civil process. The revisionist the sale purchaser in the auction of the evacuee property and the Displaced Persons Act, 1954 cannot be invoked by quoting the facts unrelated to the auction. I, therefore, do not consider that there is any sufficient ground to reopen the case which has already been decided on merits. The earlier sale certificate issued by the managing officer was a patent act a illegality and the defendants cannot be allowed to base their claim of the same.";