GORU RAM Vs. SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this application for the issue of a writ the petitioner seeks a direction in the nature of mandamus that the respondents should be asked to execute a deed of conveyance in favour of the petitioner. The petitioner, a displaced person from West Punjab, was allotted property in Faridabad by the Regional Settlement Commissioner by two communications dated 28.6.1957 and 17.7.1958. The first communication dealt with the petitioner's compensation and the manner it had been finalised. Item No. 252 Faridabad ........... Rs. 609". There was a further statement in the communication dated 28.6.1957 to the following effect :-

(2.) Though the order of allotment was made as far back as in 1957, despite repeated requests by the petitioner, the deed of conveyance was never executed. On the other hand, attempts were being made, off and on, to auction the property. The petitioner, therefore, filed the present application for the issue of writ to direct the respondents to execute a deed of conveyance in his favour.

(3.) The stand taken by the respondents in their reply is that the property was never allotted to the petitioner and could not have been allotted because of Rule 22 which prohibited the allotment of property the value of which exceeded Rs. 15,000/-. It may be mentioned that this provision was introduced by way of amendment in 1960, i.e., after the allotment in favour of the petitioner. It is the further case of the respondents that the petitioner and other persons who had requested allotment of various portions of property No. 252 had agreed in 1974 to pay 50 per cent of the enhanced price and that none of them had done so. We are unable to see what jurisdiction the Chief Settlement Commissioner had to ask the petitioner to deposit any amount in excess of what had already been adjusted.