SURINDER SINGH Vs. CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the judgment of a Division Bench of Punjab and Haryana High Court setting aside order of a single Judge and also the Order made by the Central Govt. granting extension of time to the appellant to deposit purchase price in connection with the auction sale dated August 24, 1959 held in appellant's favour, and directing the Rehabilitation Department, to take further proceedings regarding auction sale held in favour of the respondents.

(2.) Plot No. 168 situate in Jalandhar City, an evacuee property was, included, in the compensation pool under Sec. 14 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954. This plot was put to auction sale on August 24, 1959. The appellant who was displaced person made the highest bid of Rs. 20,000/-, it was provisionally accepted and he deposited 1/5th of the amount at the conclusion of the auction, but he failed to deposit the balance amount. The Managing Officer therefore cancelled the auction sale. On a Revision Petition filed by the appellant, the Chief Settlement Commissioner by his Order dated March 30, 1968 set aside the Order of the Managing Officer and allowed time to the appellant to deposit the balance of purchase price by May 30, 1968. The appellant again failed to deposit the amount within time, consequently Settlement Officer by his Order dated 2-10-1968 cancelled the auction sale made in appellant's favour. Thereafter the property was put to auction sale on January 17, 1969. At that auction sale Sohan Lal and Sunder Lal, respondents who are also displaced persons made their highest bid for Rs. 27,025 and they deposited 20% of the amount at the conclusion of the auction. Meanwhile the appellant preferred an appeal against the Order dated 2-10-1968 cancelling the auction sale before the Asstt. Settlement Officer, but the appeal was rejected on 2-4-1969. The appellant preferred a Revision Petition before the Chief Settlement Commissioner but that too was dismissed on August 13, 1969. Thereafter the appellant made a petition under Sec. 33 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) before the Central Government. Shri Rajni Kant exercising the delegated powers of the Central Govt. set aside the order cancelling the auction sale held on August 24, 1959 and granted 15 days' time to the appellant for depositing the balance of the purchase price by his Order dated February 6, 1970 with a condition that on failure to deposit the balance of the auction price the petition shall stand dismissed. The appellant again failed to deposit the amount within time, but on a request made by the appellant Shri Rajni Kant extended time till February 28, 1970 for depositing the remaining amount of purchase money. Admittedly the appellant deposited the remaining auction price by February 28, 1970. The respondents filed a Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India before the Punjab and Haryana High Court challenging the Order of Shri Rajni Kant dated February 6, 1970 as well as his subsequent Order extending time till February 28, 1970 and also for issue of a direction to the authorities to finalise the auction sale held in their favour on January 17, 1969. A learned single Judge after hearing the parties dismissed the petition. On a Letters Patent Appeal a Division Bench of the High Court allowed the appeal, set aside the Order of the learned single Judge dismissing the writ petition, and quashed the Order of Shri Rajni Kant granting time to the appellant to deposit the balance amount of the sale price under Sec. 33 of the Act. The Division Bench directed the authorities to finalise the auction sale held in respondents' favour. Aggrieved the appellant has, preferred this appeal on a certificate granted by the High Court.

(3.) The High Court held that sale of urban agricultural property which formed part of the compensation pool could be held only in accordance with the Rules framed under the Act as contemplated by Sec. 8 and See. 40. Since no rules had been framed for the disposal of the urban agricultural property; the Central Government could not lawfully provide for sale of the urban agricultural land by executive directions. Consequently auction sale held on August 24, 1959 was illegal. The High Court further held that Sri Rajni Kant exercising the powers under Sec. 33 of the Act had no jurisdiction to grant time to the appellant for making deposit or to further extend the time to enable him to deposit balance of auction price by February 28, 1970. Lastly the High Court held that Shri Rajni Kant had passed orders in violation of natural justice as no notice was issued to the respondents Sohan Lal and Sunder Lal and no opportunity of hearing was afforded to them.