BANWARI LAL Vs. FINANCIAL COMMISSIONER TAXATION PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SUBEDAR Major Banwari Lal has filed this appeal against the judgment of a learned single Judge of this Court dated September 9, 1980 by which C. W. P. No. 2871 of 1972: (reported in AIR 1981 Punj and Har 74) filed by him was dismissed. In order to appreciate the controversy, certain salient features of the case may be noticed:an Urban agricultural plot No. 1008 near Masjid Bhura Khan in Jullundur was purchased by the appellant in auction held in July, 1961. The bid was accepted vide letter dated August 19, 1961 (Copy Annexure 'a' to the writ petition ). The appellant did not pay the earnest money and instead executed an indemnity bond. Later on, only a sum of Rs. 743-56 was adjusted against his verified claim and for recovery of the balance amount of Rs. 981-44. a registered notice was issued to him by the Managing Officer on May 21, 1965. The said notice was, however, received back undelivered with the report that the whereabouts of the addressee were not known. The Managing Officer ultimately vide his order dated June 17, 1965 (copy Annexure 'b" to the writ petition) cancelled the sale in favour of the appellant and the property was again disposed of by auction on November 8, 1966, and was purchased by Mehar Singh (respondent 5) on May 16, 1967.

(2.) FEELING aggrieved from the action of the Settlement Authorities, the appellant preferred an appeal before the Authorised Settlement Commissioner, which was rejected vide order dated April 18, 1969 (copy annexure 'c' to the writ petition) on the ground that the property had gone out of the compensation pool. The revision petition filed by the appellant against the order of the Authorised Settlement Commissioner was also dismissed by the Chief Settlement Commissioner vide his order dated June 29, 1971 (copy Annexurs 'd' to the writ petition) on the ground that the appellant was unable to explain the delay caused by him in filling the appeal when the sale in his favour had been set aside by the Managing Officer on June 17, 1965. A further revision under S. 33 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) was also dismissed by the Central Government vide order dated March 14, 1972 (copy annexure 'e' to the writ petition ). The grounds on which the revision petition was dismissed are: (I) that the provisions of the Indian Soldiers (Litigation) Act had not been applied to the Tribunals functioning under the provisions of the Act, (ii) that the auction was held in July, 1961, and the appellant was duty bound to make enquiries from the settlement authorities as to the balance amount payable by him, (iii) that the notice sent to him on the last known address was received back undelivered, because he did not make adequate arrangements for the delivery of post to him before leaving for Poona. and (iv) that the property had already been disposed of in auction and had been purchased by Mehar Singh (respondent 5 ).

(3.) FEELING aggrieved from the impugned orders, the appellant preferred C. W. P. No. 2871 of 1972: (Reported in Air 1981 P and H 74 ). The learned single Judge on consideration of the entire matter, recorded the following findings: (1) That the provisions of sub-rule (7) of R. 117 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Rules, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules) are directory in nature and are not mandatory with the result that the order of the Managing Officer is not void ab initio: (2) That the appellant did not intimate the change of address with the result that the compliance of the provisions of sub-rule (7) of R. 117 would have been a mere formality and would not have made any difference; (3) That the property was auctioned and respondent 5 had purchased it in public auction and his rights cannot be interfered with unless it could be held that he was a party to the irregularity, if any, committed by the Rehabilitation authorities and (4) That in the absence of any such allegation and the property having gone out of the compensation pool after the sale in favour of Mehar Sing (respondent 5), this Court would not interfere in the matter in the exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India.