SOHAN LAL ETC. Vs. CENTRAL GOVERNMENT ETC.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE dispute in this case relates to evacuee urban agricultural land 4 Kanals 5 Marias in area, comprised in plot No. 168, situate in Jullundur City. It was in possession of Sohan Lal and Sunder Lal, but according to Surinder Singh, they were neither allottees nor lessees of the said land. On 24th August, 1959, this property was put to auction by the Rehabilitation Authorities and Surinder Singh got it for Rs. 20,500. One -fifth of this amount was deposited by him at the time of the auction, but as he did not pay the balance, the sale in his favour was cancelled on that account by the Managing Officer. This order of the Managing Officer was, however, later on, reversed by the Chief Settlement Commissioner Shri K.L. Wason on 30th March, 1968, before whom the revision petition was filed by Surinder Singh. The Chief Settlement Commissioner allowed him to deposit the balance of the auction price up to 30th May, 1968. He again failed to pay this amount within time and it is said that the Chief Settlement Commissioner gave him further time for doing so till 30th August, 1968. As Surinder Singh did not make the deposit up till that date as well, the Settlement Officer on 2nd October, 1968, cancelled the auction sale conducted on 24th August, 1959. This property was again put to auction on 17th January, 1969. Sohan Lal and Sunder Lal then gave the highest bid of Rs. 27,025.20 per cent of this amount was deposited at the time of auction and the balance had to be paid later. In the meantime, Surinder Singh filed an appeal against the order, dated 2nd October, 1968, passed by the Settlement Officer cancelling the auction sale in his favour, before the Assistant Settlement Commissioner having the powers of Settlement Commissioner. The said Officer rejected the appeal on 2nd April, 1969. Surinder Singh then filed a revision petition before the Chief Settlement Commissioner and the same was dismissed by him on 13th August, 1969. A petition under Section 33 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954, hereinafter called the Act, was then made by Surinder Singh, before the Central Government and it was accepted by Mr. Rajni Kant, who was delegated with the powers of the Central Government under the Act, on 6th February, 1970, and he granted 15 days time for depositing the balance of the auction price. In the concluding portion of his order, Mr. Rajni Kant observed:

(2.) IT is common ground that Surinder Singh did not deposit the amount within the time allowed by Mr. Rajni Kant. It is said that this period was further extended till 28th February, 1970, on which date the amount was paid by Surinder Singh. Thereafter, in March, 1970, Sohan Lal and Surinder Lal filed a writ petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution challenging the order, dated 6th February, 1970, passed by Mr. Rajni Kant. This petition was dismissed by a learned Single Judge of this Court in December, 1970, and the present Letter Patent Appeal has been directed against that order.

(3.) WE have gone through both the judgments referred to by the learned Counsel and are of the opinion that there is merit in this contention. In Bishan Singh's case, to which I was a party, it was held: