RAMESH Vs. JOINT SECRETARY, REHABILITATION-CUM-SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition has been filed under Rule 18 of the Rules for the Disposal of Surplus Evacuee Land against the order dated 16.12.96 passed by the Joint Secretary Rehabilitation-cum-Settlement Commissioner, Haryana (Respondent No. 1).

(2.) BRIEFLY , the facts of this case are that Plot No. ND-19 measuring 717 sq.yds. situated in village Kohlawas, Tehsil Dadri District Bhiwani was transferred on reserve price to the petitioner Sh. Ramesh vide Tehsildar's orders dated 10.2.1994 for a sum of Rs. 4,302/- on the basis of possession from 1980. This transfer was approved by the Assistant Settlement Officer (Sales), Karnal on 28.3.1994. The conveyance deed was issued to him on 25.7.1994. Sh. Satbir Singh filed an application before the Custodian General Haryana saying that the plot No. 19 was wrongly transferred to Sh. Ramesh by Tehsildar (Sales) alongwith the sale of the other plot No. 12. His main plea was that there was a 'neem' tree on this plot and the price of which was not charged from the transferee. Also that the price of the plot charged was very low. The Tehsildar (Sales) was asked to send a proper reference which was received accordingly on 30.1.96 and was accepted by the Joint Secretary, Rehabilitation-cum-Custodian General, Haryana. The transfer was cancelled vide his orders dated 16.12.96. The present petition has been filed against this order.

(3.) I have considered the submissions made by both sides in detail and also gone through the relevant records and facts of the case. In this case the transfer was cancelled primarily on the ground that there was no corroborated evidence to prove the substantial construction and that the reserve price was settled by the Tehsildar (Sales) at his own level. The existence of the neem tree was also not taken into account. A perusal of the facts of the case reveals that the construction on the plot in question by the petitioner was got corroborated on the site after recording the evidence of the villagers. The old occupation and construction was proved on the site. There is no evidence to the contrary that the petitioner was not eligible for the transfer. It is only the presumption which has been relied upon in this case. The other aspect of the fixation of the reserve price may be lacking in the case. It is alleged that the price of this plot was fixed on the basis of the price of the other plot No. 12 which was fixed by the A.S.O. (Sales). This, however, cannot be attributed to the petitioner. The ruling cited by the Ld. counsel for the petitioner in this regard cannot be brushed aside as the mistake of courts or its officers cannot be allowed to work injury to the litigant. The value of the 'neem' tree should have been assessed and recovered from the petitioner which if not done can be done now. This however is not so fatal and the sale can't be set aside on this ground. The petitioner has always been ready to pay the value of the neem tree. There is no fraud or illegality established to have been committed in this case. I, therefore, do not find adequate grounds for cancellation of the sale of the plot in question in favour of the petitioner which has already become final. The impugned order cancelling the transfer/sale of the land in dispute is therefore set aside. In view of the above, the petition is accepted. Announced. Petition accpeted.