Hazoora Singh (dead) by his Lrs. namely Pai Singh and Others vs Union of India and ors.

J.V. Gupta, C.J.

This order will also dispose of L.P.A. No. 1370 of 1982, as both these appeals arise out of the same order of the learned Single Judge.

By virtue of the impugned order, three writ petitions, i.e. Civil Writ Petition Nos. 461 and 4143 of 1974 and 971 of 1975 were disposed of by the learned Single Judge. The same were dismissed. Admittedly, no letters patent appeal was filed against the judgment in CWP No. 4143 of 1974 and thus the said order has become final between the parties to the said writ petition. A preliminary objection was raised on behalf of the respondents that since no appeal was filed against the said judgment and the judgment being common it will operate as res judicate. We do not find any substance in the objection as the said writ petition related to a different parcel of land which has become final between the parties in that writ petition.

The brief facts, given rise to these writ petitions were that the writ petitioner (now the appellant Hazoora Singh who died during the pendency of the appeal), purchased two plots of urban evacuee land on February 21, 1966, in an open auction by giving the highest bids to the tune of Rs. 88,000/ and Rs. 27,000/. Subsequently, on a revision petition under section 24 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation Act), (hereinafter called the Act), the Private respondents claimed to be in occupation of the land as sublessees who had already made applications in the year 1962 for the purchase of the land in terms of Rule 34D of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Rules, 1955, (hereinafter called the Rules) and the Chief Settlement Commissioner cancelled those auctions for a variety of reasons through two different orders on February 14, 1972 and August 26, 1971. The order of February 14, 1972, was the subject/matter of Civil Writ Petition Nos. 4143 of 1974, which has become final between the parties as no letters patent appeal has been filed therein. The order of August 26, 1971, was the subjectmatter of Civil Writ Petition No. 461 of 1974, giving rise to Letters Patent Appeal No. 1370 of 1982. Those orders were later affirmed by the Financial Commissioner vide impugned order dated April 17, 1973 and December 21, 1973, under section 33 of the Act. On cancellation of those auction slaes in favour of the writ petitioners, the sale certificates issued in their favour were also cancelled and the cases were remanded to the subordinate authorities for consideration of the claims of the private respondents who, as indicated above, had made applications for the purchase of the plots. During the pendency of those proceedings, a part of the land, in question, measuring about two bighas was sold in favour of the private respondents through negotiated sale for Rs. 2,49,932/ in accordance with the latest policy of the Government vide which it was decided that even a person in unauthorised occupation of the evacuee land was entitled to get the land transferred through negotiated sale. It was this sale made in favour of the private respondents which was challenged in Civil Writ Petition No. 971 of 1975, giving rise to Letters Patent Appeal No. 1371 of 1982.

In Civil Writ Petition No. 971 of 1975, a preliminary objection was raised on behalf of the respondents that since the sale in their favour had been completed on September 24, 1982, and conveyance deed to that effect had been issued on that date, the writ petition filed in February, 1975, was highly belated and deserved to be dismissed on the ground of latches. This found favour with the learned Single Judge and consequently, he dismissed the said writ petition on the short ground of it being a belated one.

As regards Civil Writ Petition Nos. 461 and 4143 of 1974, the challenge was that no irregularity had been found either by the Chief Commissioner or by the Financial Commissioner in the exercise of the powers of the Central Government under section 33 of the Act. The sale in favour of the petitioner could not be cancelled. The learned Single Judge negatived the said contention of the findings that the sale had been set aside in exercise of the revisional powers conferred by section 24 of the Act. Some of the grounds stated in those orders for setting aside the sales are that (1) before the conduct of those auction sales the applications of the petition for the transfer of the land, in question, which were pending for very long had not been dispose of, (ii) there was no due publicity about this auction and rather the mandate of subrule (4) of Rule 91 of laying down that at least 15 days notice before the proposed sale shall be given stood violated, (iii) the whole auction was a manipulated affair as there were only two bidders including the petitioner; and (iv) the petitioner had failed to deposit the balance amount of the auction money within the stipulated period of 15 days the extensions offered by the various authorities on different dates were neither before the expiry of the extended time nor those authorities had the jurisdiction to extend the time. On these findings, the learned Single Judge found :

"Thus, it is patent that sales in favour of the petitioners have not been set aside solely under Rule 92 of the rules." It was further observed,

"In the light of that, I do not find any infirmity in the impugned orders, No other points having been urged these two petitions have to be dismissed."

The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that Civil Writ Petition No. 971 of 1975 could not be dismissed as belated as the writ petitioner never came to know of the conveyance deed in favour of the private respondents. This contention is wholly fallacious. Before the learned Single Judge, an affidavit was filed by Shri P.C. Arora, Advocate, to the effect that the said conveyance deed was produced by them before the Financial Commissioner in the proceedings under section 33 of the Act. Relying upon this affidavit, it was observed by the Court.

"I have no reason to disbelieve this evidence."

In view of this finding, it could not be successfully urged in the letters patent appeal that the writ petition could not be dismissed as belated. The story of the writ petitioner that he did not know about the conveyance deed earlier was thus negatived by the said affidavit which was believed by the learned Single Judge. There is, thus, no jurisdiction for interference with the said finding in the letters patent appeal.

As regards Letters Patent Appeal No. 1370 of 1982 arising out of Civil Writ Petition No. 461 of 1974, it was submitted that since there was no finding as to the substantial injury having been caused to anybody, the sale could not be set aside under Rule 92 of rules. In support of the contention, reference was made to Chandgi Ram, v. Moonga, A.I.R. 1971, Punjab and Haryana 375 and Narvair Singh v. Financial Commissioner (Taxation) Punjab, 1981 PLJ 81. It was also contended that the land was not disposed in accordance with the order of the Chief Settlement Commissioner and that being so, the conveyance deed in favour of the private respondents was illegal. In support of the contention, reliance was placed on a Division Bench Judgment of this Court in L.P.A. No. 462 of 1969 (Chief Settlement Commissioner v. Rattan Singh decided on July 14, 1971.

After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, we do not find any merit in this contention either.

Subrule (4) of Rule 92 of the rules provides that notwithstanding anything contained in this rule, the settlement Commissioner may, of his own motion, set aside any sale under this Chapter if he is satisfied that any material irregularity or fraud which has resulted in a substantial injury to any person has been committed in the conduct of the sale. It was under this provision that the Chief Settlement Commissioner set aside the auction sale in favour of the writ petitioners, held on February 21, 1966, on the grounds enumerated earlier. The said order was maintained by the learned Financial Commissioner under section 33 of the Act. Moreover, it was no more disputed that the private respondents were already in occupation of the land as sublessees since the year 1955 and were thus entitled to purchase the same under Rule 34D of the rules. Not only that about two bighas of land was sold to them for a sum of Rs. 2,49,952/ whereas about six bighas of land was sold to the petitioner for a much lower price. As a mater of fact when the writ petitioner failed to deposit the sale price within time, the sale was cancelled. Later on time was extended by an authority which was not competent to do so. It was in these circumstances that the said sale was set aside by the Chief Settlement Commissioner, which orders have been maintained by the learned Single Judge in the writ petition. Thus, we do not find any infirmity therein as to be interfered with in the letters patent appeal.

Consequently, both the appeals fail and are dismissed with costs.