IMPORTANT POINT
Merely because evacuee transfer of property stood completed by the registration of conveyance deed, the property does not cease to be evacuee property and the Central Government can pass any order under Section 33 including cancellation of transfer and sale deed.

Headnote:Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954-Sections 33 and 34-Cancellation of transfer-Legality-Appellant was in possession, along with several other persons, of evacuee property-Chief Settlement Commissioner ordered transfer at very low price in favour of appellant-Regional Settlement Commissioner suppressed earlier higher valuation and claim petitions filed by other occupants then enabling transfer and registration of sale deed in favour of appellant-Other occupant s petition under Section 33-Secretary to Government of Haryana Department of Rehabilitation cancelled transfer after due enquiry-Appellant s plea Secretary to Government of Haryana had no jurisdiction and once transfer stood effected property ceased to be evacuee property and hence cancellation order null and void-Plea untenable-Secretary to Government Haryana had been delegated power by Central Government-Power included to deal with proceedings under Section 33-Property does not cease to be evacuee property merely because transfer already stood effected by registration of sale deed-Cancellation order justified-Plea for transfer jointly with other entitled person also rejected in view of conduct of appellant.
       Held : The argument that the delegation of power to the Secretary to Government of Haryana, Rehabilitation Department in the notification by the Central Government was only in respect of acquired property and the property in question ceased to be evacuee property after the execution of conveyance deed could not be accepted. Reference in the notification to proceedings pertaining to acquired evacuee properties and land, it is evident from a plain reading, includes the proceedings to challenge the orders directing the transfer of an acquired property, Shri Sharma was exercising powers of the Central Government under Section 33 of the Act while considering the petition which ultimately led to the passing of the order. The order of the Chief Settlement Commissioner and consequential conveyance deed have been cancelled in proceedings under Section 33 of the Act. If the contention urged on behalf of the appellant is to be accepted, it would mean that once the sale deed is executed, the Central Government would be divested of its statutory power under Section 33 of the Act despite illegality of the order. Section 33 vests in Central Government wide residuary power to call for the record of any proceedings under the Act and pass such order in relation thereto as in its opinion the circumstances and the case may require and as is not inconsistent with any of the provisions of the Act or rules made thereunder. The acceptance of the contention of learned counsel would make the provision nugatory. (Para 7)
       In view of the conduct of the appellant in the manner in which he tried to get the property transferred in his favour, there is no equity in his favour so as to accept the alternative contention that directions be issued to rehabilitation authorities to transfer the property jointly with other persons who may be found entitled thereto at the market value of the year 1969 or at best of 1973. (Para 8)

JUDGMENT

Sabharwal, J.-This dispute relates to a fairly big property situate at Palwal, District Faridabad. It comprises of a big sarai and a dozen adjoining shops on the ground floor besides flat on the first floor and open land. It is an evacuee property acquired by competent authority under Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954 (for short the Act ). Apart from the appellant, there are other persons also who claim to be in possession of part of the property. In April 1969, the Chief Settlement Commissioner directed the sale and transfer of the property in favour of the appellant for a sale consideration of about Rs. 17,000/-. In May 1969, the sale deed was executed and registered in favour of the appellant. Soon thereafter, a petition under Section 33 of the Act was filed before the Central Government by 11 persons challenging the transfer and sale in favour of the appellant pursuant to the order of the Chief Settlement Commissioner. The petition though initially filed before the Central Government was later transferred for disposal to the Commissioner and Secretary to the Government of Haryana, Rehabilitation Department, who was exercising powers of the Central Government under Section 33 of the Act. The property was transferred in favour of the appellant treating it to be an indivisible single property.

2. Section 34 of the Act, inter alia, stipulates that the Central Government may direct that any of its power be also exercised by such officer or authority as may be specified in the notification. By a notification dated 17th April, 1970, the Government of India, in exercise of powers conferred by sub-section 1 of Section 34 of the Act directed that powers exercisable by it under sub-section 4 of Section 24, 28 and Section 33 of the Act shall be exercisable also by the Secretary to the Government of Haryana, Rehabilitation Department, in respect of proceedings pertaining to acquired evacuee properties and lands situate within the State of Haryana.

3. By an Order dated 8th March, 1973, the Secretary to the Government of Haryana in exercise of powers under Section 33 of the Act cancelled the order of Chief Settlement Commissioner of April, 1969 directing transfer and sale of the property to the appellant at about Rs. 17,000/- and consequently, sale and conveyance deed issued in favour of the appellant in May, 1969 was also set aside. The said order inter alia notices that the examination of whatever record was made available throws a good deal of light on the sordid affair of transfer. The order also notices that despite various letters and reminders, attempts were made to withhold the record and requisite files. If further notices that the entire mischief of transfer of property for about Rs. 17,000/- occurred because of misleading report by the Regional Settlement Commissioner. The record showed that the property had been valued in December 1967 at about Rs. 54,000/- and earlier in October, 1967, the market value had been assessed at about Rs. 75,000/-. In this view, the order concludes that it was clear that despite existence of evaluation assessment by competent officers of much higher market value which must been suppressed due to ulterior motives, the Regional Settlement Commissioner obtained a convenient low evaluation report with a view to favour someone and misguide the Chief Settlement Commissioner and thus misled him into passing of order approving sale for about Rs. 17,000/-. It has also been noticed that worse than the suppression of the correct market value was the fact of suppression of the pendency of applications of others who were claiming right of transfer of the property and were also protesting about the efforts being made to transfer the property surreptitiously to the appellant. A fear had been expressed by others that without taking into consideration their rights based on occupation etc., the property was being sought to be transferred to one person in utter disregard of their

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2000 Supreme(SC) 417

IMPORTANT POINTMerely because evacuee transfer of property stood completed by the registration of conveyance deed, the property does not cease to be evacuee property and the Central Government can pass any order under Section 33 including cancellation of transfer and sale deed.

Cases Referred (1)

IMPORTANT POINT
Merely because evacuee transfer of property stood completed by the registration of conveyance deed, the property does not cease to be evacuee property and the Central Government can pass any order under Section 33 including cancellation of transfer and sale deed.