Back
2015 Supreme(P&H) 2032
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Rakesh Kumar Jain, J.
Bashambar Lal (Now Deceased) and Others – Petitioners
Versus
Financial Commissioner, Revenue, Punjab and Others – Respondents
Civil Writ Petition No. 11250 of 1988
Decided On : 19-08-2015
For the Petitioner: A.K. Jain.
For the Respondents: Vinay Saini for G.S Nagra, Yitender Sharma.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the importance of following correct auction procedures and compliance with relevant rules in property disputes under the Displaced Persons (C&R) Act, 1954.
Headnote:
Displaced Persons - Property Dispute - Displaced Persons (C&R) Act, 1954, Section 33 - Rule 22 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Rules, 1955 - Punjab Package Deal Properties (Disposal) Act, 1976 - Punjab Package Deal Properties (Disposal) Rules, 1976
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners challenged the validity of orders related to the transfer of an evacuee property under the Displaced Persons (C&R) Act, 1954. The property was put to auction, and the petitioners became the highest bidder and were issued a Sale Certificate. The respondent filed a civil suit seeking injunction, claiming possession of the property.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the orders passed by the authorities were illegal and quashed them, stating that the auction procedures were followed correctly and there was no mistake in issuing a fresh proclamation for the auction.
Issues: Validity of orders related to the transfer of an evacuee property, possession dispute, and compliance with auction procedures.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that the auction procedures were followed correctly, and there was no mistake in issuing a fresh proclamation for the auction, as per the relevant rules.
Final Decision: The writ petition was allowed, and the orders were quashed.
Rakesh Kumar Jain, J.
CM No. 4770 of 2013
1. This application is filed by the applicants/petitioners for impleading the legal heirs of Chaman Lal. Application is allowed as prayed for subject to all just exceptions.
CWP No. 11250 of 1988
2. The petitioners have challenged validity of the order dated 28.12.1983 (Annexure P-4) passed by Deputy Secretary (Rehabilitation)-cum-Chief Settlement Commissioner, Punjab and the order dated 30.8.1988 (Annexure P-5) passed by the Financial Commissioner, Revenue and Secretary to Government of Punjab, Rehabilitation Department with delegated powers of Central Government under Section 33 of the Displaced Persons (C&R) Act, 1954.
3. Brief history of the case is that father of the petitioners, namely Nanak Chand was in possession of a plot No. 1124-A-II-SA/405, Mohalla Mori Bari, Khanna, District Ludhiana, which was an evacuee property vested in the custodian. Father of the petitioner was claiming the said property being an occupant and applied for its transfer to him on reserve price under the provisions of Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954 (for short 'the Act'). Respondent No. 3 was also claiming transfer of the said plot and had been approaching the Rehabilitation Authorities since 1967. Respondent No. 3 filed C.W.P. No. 1794 of 1970 titled as Wadhawa Singh v. Union of India, which was allowed by this Court on 29.4.1980 with the following order:-
"In view of the fair stand of both the learned counsel for the parties, I need not give the detailed facts of this case. They are agreed that both the parties are in possession of different parts of the property in question i.e. plot No. 1124-A-II-S/405 in Khanna, District Ludhiana and in view of that factual position and the legal provisions contained in Rule 22 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Rules, 1955, the property is not allotable to either of them and has necessarily to be put to auction. Therefore, the orders Annexure-D and E saying to the contrary that the property should be transferred in favour of the respondents, are set aside.
Consequently, I allow this petition and direct the respondent authorities to put the above mentioned property to auction. I, however, pass no order as to costs."
4. In the year 1976, the Punjab Package Deal Properties (Disposal) Act, 1976 and the Punjab Package Deal Properties (Disposal) Rules, 1976, came into being for the disposal of the surplus evacuee properties, vesting in the custodian/Central Government, were taken over by the State Government. In terms of the decision of this Court on 29.4.1980, the property in dispute was put to auction in the month of September, 1981. According to the petitioners, auction notice was given in accordance with the rules and the auction took place on 16.9.1981, but it could not be carried out because number of the bidders were found less by the auctioneer and the auction was adjourned to 22.9.1981 and was ordered to be held at a different place i.e. Guru Teg Bahadur National High School. In the said auction held on 22.9.1981, petitioner No. 1 was the highest bidder for a sum of Rs. 21,000/- against the reserved price of Rs. 18360/-. The sale was confirmed and the petitioner was issued Sale Certificate under Rule 6 (6) XIV of the Rules of 1976 on 07.7.1982 by the Tehsildar (Sales)-cum-M.O. Ludhiana and petitioner No. 1 was declared to be purchaser of the said property from 12.4.1982. That after the purchase of the plot, petitioner No. 1 got the site plan approved from the Municipal Committee, Khanna, for the construction of his house on the plot.
5. Respondent No. 3 did not challenge the auction, rather filed a civil suit in March, 1983 against the petitioners when they were raising construction, sought permanent injunction on the ground that he is in possession of the plot for the last more than 20/25 years and the said plot is otherwise not owned by the petitioners as it belongs to the Custodian.
6. In the written state
