K.KANNAN, J. - (1.) BOTH the writ petitions challenge the orders passed by the Financial Commissioner (Revenue)-cum-Secretary to Government of Haryana arrayed as respondent No. 3 annulling the sale made already in favour of the respective vendors by the Custodian under the Administration of Evacuee Property Act, 1950 (for short, 'the 1950 Act'). The petitioners in both the cases are the respective purchasers of the rights of three persons namely Hari Gopal, Ram Chand and Chuni Lal, who were the original transferees from the Custodian under the 1950 Act.
(2.) THE admitted case is that the properties represented 2/3rd share that was held by the aforesaid three persons as permanent lessees. The ownership in the property was claimed by one Capt. Nuru-ul-din and after the partition, the proprietary right of 2/3rd share become vested in the custodian under the 1950 Act. The Assistant Custodian, Jullundur vide his order dated 26.05.1961 (Annexure P-3) held that the aforesaid three persons were entitled to get 2/3rd share of the proprietary right in recognition of the right under the perpetual lease. The Assistant Settlement Officer conveyed to the Regional Settlement Commissioner the approval of the Custodian General for sale of the proprietary rights in 2/3rd share to the aforesaid three persons under Section 10(2) of the 1950 Act at a price of Rs. 3,373.33. It must be noticed that the possessory rights were already with the aforesaid three persons. In pursuance of the sale by an indentures dated 03.02.1969, the property had been sold to the aforesaid three persons at the price mentioned already in the letter of the Assistant Settlement Officer. This property came to be subsequently sold in favour of the present petitioners. The Administration of Evacuee Property Act, 1950, which contained definition of 'evacuee property' also made provisions for vesting of rights of an evacuee in respect of such evacuee property. The 1950 Act gave place to the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954 (for short, 'the 1954 Act'). The provisions for acquisition in favour of the Central Government was in respect of evacuee property for the public purpose of rehabilitation. The 1954 Act retained the definition of 'evacuee property' as contained under the 1950 Act through Section 2(c) and created a compensation pool under Section 14, which could be in terms of cash or property and could be used for the benefit of displaced persons. The 1954 Act also contains elaborate provisions with rules supplementing them, identifying the class of persons to whom such property could be transferred if a property was acquired through a notification contained under Section 12 of the 1954 Act. The 1950 Act vested in the Custodian only such rights as the evacuee had, while the 1954 Act made possible the acquisition of all the rights in the evacuee property with the Central Government. By reading both the enactments together the Custodian, by the vesting that had taken place under Section 8 of the 1950 Act, after notification had a power to sell such right as he had, under Section 10(2)(o) of the 1950 Act. The said section insofar as relevant is reproduced : "10. Powers and duties of the Custodian generally. - (1) Subject to the provisions of any rules that may be made in this behalf the Custodian may taken such measures as he considers necessary or expedient for the purpose of securing, administering, preserving and managing any property and generally for the purpose of enabling him satisfactorily to discharge any of the duties imposed on him by or under this Act and may, for any such purpose as aforesaid, do all acts and incur all expenses necessary or incidental thereto. (2) Without prejudice to the generality of the provisions contained in sub-section (1), the Custodian may, for any of the purposes aforesaid, - (a) to (n) x x x x x (o) transfer in any manner whatsoever any evacuee property, notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in any law or agreement relating thereto;" It could be seen that a property that was sold by the Custodian was not in any way inconsistent with the scheme of the 1954 Act. The acquisition that could take place under Section 12 of the 1954 Act could be only in respect of evacuee property that remained as such and which had not been transferred under Section 10 by the Custodian. In this case, when the Assistant Custodian had sold the property after the concurrence of the Custodian General, there was nothing that remained under the 1954 Act for an acquisition by the Central Government. Indeed, there was no notification under Section 12 acquiring the property, which had been sold to the three persons referred to above.
(3.) THE impugned order came to be passed only when the Financial Commissioner held under the 1954 Act that the price that had been fixed and sold by the Custodian was inadequate and brought out in his order by reference to several sales of property in the village showing the average sale price at the auctions fetched Rs. 54.37 per sq. yard and the price at which the property was sold to the petitioners/vendors had been @ Rs. 10/- per sq. yard only. He, therefore, redetermined the price and held that the minimum price should have been Rs. 40/- per sq. yard and the amount be paid within three months, failing which the steps must be taken to resume the property and action be taken according to the rules.;