The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for a show cause notice to be explicit and contain reasons for issuance, as the absence of reasons would render the notice invalid.

JUDGMENT :

Ajay Mohan Goel, J.

By way of this petition, petitioners have inter alia prayed for the following substantive relief:-

"(i) That order Annnexure P-5 passed by the Chief Settlement Commissioner (Rehabilitation) government of Himachal Pradesh and Annexure P-7 passed by the Ld. Financial Commissioner (Appeals) may kindly be quashed and set aside in the interest of justice and fair play.

(ii) That the respondents may kindly be burdened with costs.

(iii) That the entire record of the case may kindly be called for.

Any such further orders, writ or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may kindly be passed in favour of the petitioners and against the respondents."

2. Brief facts necessary for adjudication of the present petition are as under:-

Petitioners applied for sale of land measuring 2262 sq. meters comprised in Khasra No. 997, situated in Up Mohal Missan Mauza Ujjain, Tehsil and District Kangra, Himachal Pradesh to Naib Tehsildar (Sales)-cum-Managing Officer, Kangra, under the provisions of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as the 1954 Act'), on the ground that they were in settled and physical possession of the said evacuee property. Vide Annexure P-1, the Sale Certificate was issued in their favour on 6th April, 1996. The officer concerned transferred the said land by way of sale in favour of the petitioners for a total sale consideration of Rs. 2500/-. Thereafter, mutation was attested in favour of the petitioners qua the suit land and entries were duly recorded in the revenue record.

3. A Notice was received by the petitioners dated 01.01.2002 (Annexure P-3) issued by the Chief Settlement Commissioner, Rehabilitation, Himachal Pradesh at Shimla, in which it was mentioned that it had come to the notice of the said Officer that the land, subject matter of this petition, was transferred by Naib Tehsildar (Sales), Kangra/Shimla to the petitioners and the signatory to the Notice, i.e. Chief Settlement Commissioner, Rehabilitation, Himachal Pradesh, calls upon the petitioners as to why the transfer of the land mentioned in the Notice should not be cancelled in exercise of powers under Section 24 of the 1954 Act.

4. Petitioners responded to said Notice and stated that they had purchased the evacuee property in a lawful manner after paying the lawful consideration and after the sale of the property in favour of the petitioners, they have become absolute owners of the same and were also in possession thereof and that Officer was having no jurisdiction to initiate proceedings under Section 24 of the 1954 Act.

5. Chief Settlement Commissioner, Rehabilitation, vide order dated 26.11.2011 (Annexure P-5), set aside the conveyance deed executed on 06.04.1996 and ordered the property to be restored to the Central government on the ground that the transaction was a result of fraud and in violation of the Rules and the Officer concerned had indulged in gross negligence and misuse of official position and committed fraud with the Government. It was mentioned in the order that the Officer concerned, who had issued the Sale Certificate, was not competent to transfer the land and it was in the knowledge of the purchaser that no property could be obtained in such unlawful manner. It was also mentioned in the order that purchaser should have inquired about the evacuee property and therefore, role of the purchaser in obtaining the Sale Certificate also could not be ruled out.

6. A revision petition preferred against the said order under Section 24 of the 1954 Act was also dismissed by the learned Financial Commissioner (Appeals) vide order dated 18.5.2015 (Annexure P-7), by holding that procedure as prescribed in Chief Settlement Commissioners' letter No. Rev (RR)(F)10-2/87-II, dated 8.7.1994, which provided that no evacuee property should be transferred by Naib Tehsildarcum-Managing Director was violated and Central Government p