Gurbax Rai vs Fauja Singh

P.C. Jain, A.C.J.

Gurbax Rai has filed this appeal against the judgment of the learned Single Judge of this Court, dated 29th April, 1980, by which Civil Writ Petition No. 1229 of 1970 filed by Fauja Singh respondent was allowed and the impugned orders dated 25th August, 1969, and 10th June, 1970, copies Annexure `C'' and `D'', were quashed.

In order to appreciate the controversy, certain salient features of the case may be noticed:

Gurbax Rai appellant and respondents No. 4 and 5 had mortgaged the property in dispute with some Mohammedan evacuees. The matter was referred to the competent officer for separation of the evacuee interest therein under the provisions of Evacuee Interest (Separation) Act, 1951, who vide his order dated 20th September, 1957 vested the entire property in the Custodian. The appellant or respondents No. 4 and 5 or their predecessorsininterest had not put in appearance in those proceedings. Thereafter, this land was sold in auction on 12th November, 1964, and was purchased by Fauja Singh respondent (writpetitioner). At a later stage, on an objection by the appellant and respondents No. 4 and 5 to the sale of the land in dispute, the Assistant Custodian vide his order dated 25th August, 1969, allowed the redemption of the property. Against this order of the Assistant Custodian, the writ petitioner filed a revision petition before the Deputy Custodian General under section 27 of the Administration of Evacuee Property Act, 1950, who affirmed the order of the Assistant Custodian with the observation that the writ petitioner being only an auction purchaser had no locus standi to challenge the order of the Assistant Custodian allowing redemption of the land in question.

Before the learned Single Judge the orders of the authorities dated 25th August, 1969 and 10th June, 1970, copies Annexure `C'' and `D'', were assailed primarily on the ground that after the property had become a package deal property and had been put to auction as such, the authorities had no jurisdiction to deal with or allow the redemption of the same. Before the learned Single Judge it was also contended that the writpetitioner being an auction purchaser, had every interest in the property and could certainly assail the order of the Assistant Custodian.

The learned Single Judge on the basis of a Division Bench judgment of this Court in Bishan Singh v. Chief Settlement Commissioner, 1973 P.L.J. 183, held that the authorities under the Rehabilitation Act had no jurisdiction to deal with the property which had been acquired by the State Government under the package deal. In view of this finding, without going into the question of locus standi or any other question, the learned Single Judge allowed the petition and quashed the impugned orders.

Before us, the learned counsel for the appellant has raised a contention which is well merited, to the effect that the auction in favour of Fauja Singh was set aside by the Assistant Settlement Commissioner vide his order dated 27th June, 1966, copy Annexure `A''; that his appeal against the order dated 27th June, 1966, was rejected by the Chief Settlement Commissioner on 25th January, 1968, that the writ petitioner (now respondent) had been left with no right in the property in dispute; that in the circumstances of the case it was necessary for the learned Single Judge to have first determined the locus standi of the writ petitioner to challenge the impugned orders and that even if the appellant was allowed to redeem the land in dispute by an authority without any jurisdiction, still the writ petition should have been dismissed on the ground that the writ petitioner had no locus standi to challenge the impugned orders. On the other hand, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the respondent (writ petitioner) on the basis of the judgment of this Court in Bishan Singh''s case (supra) that the authorities under the Rehabilitation Act had no jurisdiction to deal with the package deal property and as such the impugned orders were rightly set aside.

After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, we find considerable force in the contentions of the learned counsel for the appellant. Fauja Singh respondent could challenge the legality of the impugned orders only if the auction in his favour had stood. after the cancellation of the auction and the affirmance of that order in appeal, Fauja Singh respondent was left with no right in the property in dispute; with the result that he could not challenge the legality of the impugned orders. In this situation, the learned counsel is justified in contending that the learned Single Judge has erred in quashing the impugned orders without first deciding the locus standi of Fauja Singh respondent. As is evident from our discussion, Fauja Singh was left with no right in the property, and hence he had no locus standi to file the petition challenging the legality and propriety of the impugned orders.

In this view of the matter, we allow this appeal, set aside the judgment of the learned Single Judge and dismiss C.W.P. No. 1929 of 1970 filed by Fauja Singh, on the ground that the writ petitioner has no locus standi to challenge the legality and propriety of the impugned orders. In the circumstances of the case, we make no order as to costs.