Harbans Lal , J. - (1.) THIS is a writ petition under articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, for the issuance of a writ of Certiorari quashing the order of the Chief Settlement Commissioner, dated January 28, 1976(sic) (Annexure P -4), and the order of the Financial Commissioner, dated April 0,(sic) 1976 (Annexure P 5).
(2.) THE case of the Petitioner is that he is a displaced person from Pakistan and held verified claim Property bearing No. 3338/1 (hereinafter to be called the disputed property), situated in Amritsar) was deciared(sic) evacuee(sic) property under the Administration of Evacuee Property Act 1950 (hereinafter to be called the Act of 1950), and was allotted to him. He continues in possession of the same since 1947. A notification was published in the official gazette under Section 12(2) of the DI(sic) placed Persons (Compensation end Rehabilitation) Act 1954 (hereinafter called the Act of 1954), with regard to this property and in consequence thereof, all rights, title and interest of the evacuee(sic) were extinguished and the property was vested absolutely in the Central Government The same, thereafter, formed part of the compensation pool under Section 20 of the Act of 1954. An agreement relating thereto was entered into between the Petitioner and the Settlement Officer, Amritsar, on November 12, 1953,(sic) according to which the disputed property was to be transferred to the Petitioner for Rs. 8,375/ -. After adjusting the verified claim of Rs 82/ -,(sic) the balance amount was to be paid by mnents(sic) of The first instalment Rs. 82/(sic) was paid by him in pursuance of this agreement. Sadar Anjuman Ahmedia, Qadin, District Gurdaspur, Respondent No. 2 , claiming the disputed property as its ownership, managed to scure(sic) an order dated January 23, 1960, from the District Rent and Managing Officer, Amritsar, to the effect that the disputed property Had been restored to it by the Government of India by its order dated March 9, 1959. A copy of the order to this effect has been filed by Respondent No. 2, as Annexure R.1. This was contested by the Petitioner before the District Rent and Managing Officer, Amritsar, who made enquiry from the Custodian, Evacuee Property, Punjab, Jullundur about this order. The latter authority informed him by his letter dated October (sic), 1960 (Annexure P1), that there was no such restoration order in favour of Respondent No 2 on the file relating to the disputed property. (sic) the District Rent and Managing Officer, Jullundur, made a report in favour of the Petitioner and consequently, an order was passed by the Regional Settlement Commissioner, Jullundur, to the effect that the disputed properly may be transferred to the Petitioner, as ordered before. The order in these terms was conveyed to the District Rent and Managing Officer, Jullu -ndur, by letter dated April 3, 1963 (Annexure P -2). After the passing of this order, the Petitioner deposited the balance amount of the sale consideration along with interest and ultimately sale deed in respect of the disputed property was executed by the Assistant Settlement Officer (Accounts) cum -Managing Officer, Rehabilitation Department, Punjab, Jullundur on July 11, 1975, in favour of the Petitioner. The said deed was got registered with the Sub -registrar, Amritsar on July, 16, 1975. Respondent No. 2, made a representation to the Deputy Secretary, (Rehabilitation cum -Chief Settlement Commissioner,) Jullun -dur, against the sale of the disputed property to the Petitioner and claimed that the same had been restored to it by the Government of India. The Chief Settlement Commissioner on this, passed interim order dated July 31, 19 5(sic) (Annexure (sic) -3) restraining the Petitioner from disposing of the disputed property during the pendency of the proceedings. Subsequent thereto, the Chief Settlement Commissioner Punjab, Jullundur, initiated suo motu proceedings under Section 24 of the Act of 1954, and set aside the order regarding sale of the disputed property in favour of the Petitioner after hearing both the parties and held that the disputed property stood restored in favour of Respondent No. 2, by the Government of India, by order dated March 9, 1 59(sic). A copy of this order is Annexure P 4 annexed to the writ petition Revision petition by the Petitioner under Section ?(sic) of the Act of 1954 before the Financial Commissioner, Revenue, Punjab, was also dismissed by order dated April 20, 1976 (Annexure P -5). These impugned orders, Annexures P 4 and P.5, resulting in the cancellation of sale of the disputed property in favour of the Petitioner has been challenged in the present writ petition.
(3.) THE case of Respondent No. 2, in reply, is that the disputed property was not evacuee property and was restored to it by the Government of India vide its order dated March (sic), 1959, requisite information regarding which has conveyed to Shri Salahuddin Malik, Mukhtar -i -am of Respondent No. 2, by the District Rent and Managing Officer vide letter dated July 23, 1960 (Annexure R. 1) From this letter, it is also clear that a copy of this letter was also forwarded to the Petitioner. After the Regional Settlement Commissioner, Jullundur, by its order dated April 3, 1963, (Annexure P -2) had decided to finalise the trans action of sale of the disputed property in favour of the Petitioner, his order was cancelled by the Regional Settlement Commissioner himself by his subsequent order dated April 30, 1963 and intimation regarding the same was sent by him to the District Rent and Managing Officer Jullundur, by his letter Annexure R -2 and a copy of the same was also forwarded to the Petitioner as is evident from the indorsement(sic) made on the same, that is, annexure R.2. It has been further averred that the notification under Section 12(2) of the Act of 1954, alleged to have been published, according to the averment of the Petitioner, was in fact, not published and that the agreement to sell and the sale deed having been executed between the Petitioner and the Rehabilitation authorities, after the order of restoration had been passed in favour of Respondent No. 3,(sic) had no legal validity. The Chief Settlement Commissioner, rightly set aside the same proceedings end held the order of restoration in favour of Respondent No. 2 to be valid and binding. It was also urged that after the order of restoration had been passed, the Petitioner accenting the right of Respondent No. 2, took the disputed property on rent from Respondent No 2, by executing a lease(sic) deed on November 12, 1960, at the rate of Rs. 15/ - per measem(sic) Afterwards, as some additions had been made in the demised, premises fresh lease deed was executed by the Petitioner in favour of Respondent No. 2 on September 18, 1975, and the monthly rent was increased from Rs. 15/ -to Rs. 25/ -. Subsequently, an ejectment application was filed on behalf of Respondent No. 2, against the Petitioner, regarding the disputed property, under the provisions of the East Punjab Urban Rent Resfiction(sic) Act, before the Rent Controller, Amritsar, in which the Petitioner tendered arrears of rent on the first date of hearing thereby acknow lodging the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. It was also alleged that the Petitioner knowing fully well the real position, deliberately made an application on March 6, 1975(sic), to the Managing Officer. Jullundur, with a request that the balance sale price be got deposited from him. It was under mistaken impression that the sale certificate was issued by the Department. Another allegation levelled in the written statement is that the letter (Annexure R -2), whereby the order in favour of the Petitioner (Annexure P 2) had been cancelled was got manoeuvered to be removed from the file of the case by the Petitioner Regarding the factum of lease by the Petitioner in favour of Respondent No 2 and the deposit of arrears of rent before the Rent Controller in the ejectment application filed against him by Respondent No 2, no attempt has been made by the Petitioner to rebut these facts. According to the learned Counsel for the Petitioner, after the enforcement of the Act of 1954, the Central Government had acquired the disputed property as evacuee property by publishing a notification in the official gazette and under Sub -section (2) to Section 12 of the Act of 1954, all rights, title and interest of the evacuee, that is, Respondent No. 2, were exting ished and the same vested absolutely in the Central Government free from all encumbrances. The result of this was, according to the submission of the learned Counsel, that the disputed property became a part of the compensation pool and the same was transferred to the Petitioner under Section 20 on payment of sale consideration as prescribed by the authorities. The Petitioner in consequence thereof, had made payment, of the entire sale price. Even a sale deed was executed in his favour by the department.;