Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
M.H. BEG AND JASWANT SINGH, JJ.
Beant Singh, Appellant
Versus
Union of India and others, Respondents.
Civil Appeal No. 333 of 1969,
D/, 18-11-1976.
Advocates appeared
Mr. B. Sen, Sr. Advocate. (Mr. H. K. Puri, Advocate with him), for Appellant; Mr. S. K. Mehta, Mr. P. N. Puri and Mr. K. R. Nagaraja, Advocates, for Respondent No. 5.
Refugees Rehabilitation and Settlement Act - Civil Procedure Code, 1908 - Order XLI – Constitution of India, 1950 - Apart from jurisdictional errors – Claim of compensation - Whether any such apparent error was disclosed in proceedings of authorities acting under Refugees Rehabilitation and Settlement Act as to justify interference by High Court - Whether learned Single Judge was justified in considering facts of case and recording certain findings of fact without having even advantage of record of proceedings of Deputy Chief Settlement Commissioner and other officers who had given certain other findings in favor of appellant - Whether learned Single Judges findings of fact are correct - Whether any such apparent error was disclosed in proceedings of authorities acting under Refugees Rehabilitation and Settlement Act as to justify interference by High Court - Court have executed an indemnity bond in lieu of earnest money due from you for adjustment against compensation admissible on your verified claim - For this purpose please furnish if you have not already done at time of auction registration number of your compensation application so as to reach this office within seven days of issue of this letter - In case you intend to associate any other claimants with court in purchase of mentioned property you should also submit affidavits of association duly completed by court and by each of your associates as per specimen attached to this office within period specified above - Balance of purchase money if any found due from court after scrutiny of your compensation application and that of your associates will be communicated to you in due course - On margin of front page of this letter is a partially illegible writing running from top to bottom of printed foolscap sheet on original record - With some difficulty the following part only can be read - Court are required to submit following documents regarding provisional possession within seven days from receipt of this letter failing which your case will be After will be nothing is found written - It is disputed between parties whether this writing in hand on margin existed on the letter received by attorney - However even looking at copy on original record meaning is not at all intelligible if it existed it could only confuse and not enlighten the recipient as to what was to be done – Held, Learned Single Judge pointed out that mentioned order of Appellate Authority was also void for contravening the provisions of Rule 105 as interpreted by a Full Bench of the High Court so that it was duty of Settlement Commissioner to fix a date for hearing and to inform the appellant of it was not discharged – Apparently appeal was decided without informing the contesting respondent when her appeal would be heard - Rule 105 which was thus contravened provides - Provisions of Order XLI of the Code of Civil Procedure apply to appeals and revisions - Except as otherwise expressly provided in Act or in the Act or in these rules procedure laid down in Order XLI of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 shall so far as may be applicable apply to hearing and disposal of appeals and revisions under Act – Court think that in circumstances of case it could not be said that learned Single Judges conclusion that provisions of Rule 90 had not been complied with in dealing with case who had suffered injustice was erroneous - A mere reading of the above quoted provision shows that one of conditions precedent entitling rehabilitation Authorities to cancel the sale and to forfeit the initial deposit is service on auction purchaser of a notice specified in sub-rule (11), sub-rule (12) or sub rule (13) of Rule 90 - To petitioner admittedly complied with requirement of the notice under sub rule (12) of Rule 90 and no notice in terms of requirements of sub-rule (13) of Rule 90 was ever admittedly issued to or served on the petitioner - In these circumstances Rehabilitation Authorities had no jurisdiction whatsoever for cancelling sale in favor of the petitioner on account of alleged non-payment of balance of the purchase price and for forfeiting the initial deposit made by her - In this view of matter the impugned orders cancelling sale in favor of the petitioner and forfeiting her initial deposit are wholly without jurisdiction and cannot possibly be sustained - Errors of law in orders of Chief Settlement Commissioner and the other Rehabilitation Authorities are apparent on their face inasmuch as the said orders have been passed in absolute ignorance of the statutory provisions referred to above - Appeal dismissed
Judgment
BEG, J.:- This appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment of a Division Bench of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana dismissing in limine an appeal against a judgment and order of a learned Single Judge of that Court by which a Writ Petition made to the High Court had been granted.
2. We have been taken through the very detailed judgment of the learned Single Judge where all the relevant facts are considered in detail. The questions which have been raised before us are: firstly, whether the learned Single Judge was justified in considering the facts of the case and recording certain findings of fact without having even the advantage of the record of the proceedings of the Deputy Chief Settlement Commissioner, and other officers who had given certain other findings in favour of the appellant, secondly, whether the learned Single Judges findings of fact are correct: and thirdly, whether any such apparent error was disclosed in the proceedings of the authorities acting under the Refugees Rehabilitation and Settlement Act as to justify interference by the High Court. It was urged that a mistake apparent on the face of the record has to be one which does not necessitate delving deep into facts on record to discover it after a re-examination of questions of fact which ought to be left to the authorities empowered to give these findings. It is true that the High Court does not sit as a Court of appeal to substitute its own judgment for that of the authorities which are empowered to give their decisions in such cases. Apart from jurisdictional errors, the High Court may correct errors apparent on the face of the record. An error to be apparent must, according to a rough test laid down by this Court in S. L. Hegde v. M. B. Tirumale, (1960) 1 SCR 890 be one which does not take prolonged arguments to bring it to the surface. These propositions are quite well established.
3. It is, however, also a settled rule of practice of this Court not to interfere with the exercise of discretionary powers of High Courts under Article 226 of the Constitution merely because two views are possible upon the facts of a case. Furthermore, in order to induce this Court to interfere under Article 136 of the Constitution the question must involve at least a matter of public or general importance or the injustice suffered by an individual due to an error of law should be so gross as to touch the conscience of this Court in which case it would be deemed to be one of more than private importance.
4. The case before us is one of a competition between two auction purchasers of the same property put up for sale at two different auctions by the Managing Officer, Amritsar. The first was in favour of the respondent Smt. Rup Kaur, held on 20th August, 1959, and the second in favour of Beant Singh, the appellant, held on 10th May, 1961, on the assumption that the first auction could be cancelled. The broad material facts, apparent from the original official record, which is now before us, are stated below.
5. At the auction sale on 20th August, 1959 held by the Managing Officer, Amritsar, Rup Kaurs bid of Rs. 32,000/-, being the highest, was accepted and this fact was communicated to her by a letter dated 11th September, 1959, sent through her son and general attorney M. S. Grewal. This letter was in the following terms:
"Dear Sir/Madam,
I am to inform you that your bid for Rs. 32,000/- (Rupees thirty two thousand only) in respect of property No. B-XIII -18-S-14 (Portion I and III) Hide Market Amritsar has been accepted as per terms and conditions of the auction.
2. You have executed an indemnity bond in lieu of the earnest money due from you for adjustment against the compensation admissible on your verified claim (s). For this purpose please furnish if you have not already done at the time of auction the registration number of your compensation application, so as to reach this office within seven days of the issue of this letter. In case you intend to
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
