AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Jawahar Lal Gupta, J.—The petitioner challenges the order dated December, 1, 1998 passed by the Commissioner and Secretary to Government Haryana, Rehabilitation Department, u/s 33 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954. By this order, the petitioner''s claim for the allotment of 687 sq. yards of land has been rejected. It has been found that the petitioner does not fulfill the essential condition of eligibility in as much as he had not raised a substantial construction by January 1, 1982. The petitioner alleges that the order is arbitrary and illegal. He prays that it be quashed. A few facts as relevant for the decision of the case may be briefly noticed.
The petitioner owns plot No. 3 in the New Industrial Township of Faridabad. On November 14, 1970, he submitted an application to the department of Rehabilitation, Government of India, New Delhi with the request that the space, which was "lying unused", may be sold to him. A copy of this application is at Annexure P.5 with the writ petition. Before the application could be decided, the Government of India transferred the "residual properties" to the State Government.
On February 27, 1989, the petitioner submitted an application to the Tehsildar (Sales)-cum-Managing Officer, Faridabad for the allotment of the land measuring 600 square yards to him. The petitioner alleges that vide letter dated March 14, 1989, the land was allotted to him. A copy of this letter is at Annexure P.9 with the writ petition, the total value of the land was fixed at Rs. 2,01,000/-. The petitioner was directed to deposit 25% of the price. The remaining amount had to be paid in instalments. The petitioner made the deposit on April 11, 1989. Thereafter, vide letter dated May 18, 1989, the Tehsildar (Respondent No. 4) issued a ''No Objection Certificate'' by which the petitioner was permitted to raise construction "after getting the plan approved from the Faridabad Complex Administration."
The allotment of land to the petitioner was subject to the approval of the competent authority. A specific stipulation to this effect had been made in Clause 9 of the letter of allotment. The Tehsildar submitted a report to the Chief Settlement Commissioner. It was pointed out that:-
"the land is lying vacant on the spot. The instructions dated 11.7.1988 and 11.8.1988 issued by the Department for the transfer of land to the unauthorized occupants are not applicable in this case and the Tehsildar (Sales) was not authorized to offer the vacant plot for transfer to anybody on the price fixed by the Government. Besides, none is in possession of the same...."
The Chief Settlement Commissioner accepted the report vide order dated October 16, 1989. A copy of this order is at Annexure P. 14 with the writ petition. He held that the offer had been "made in contravention of the instructions dated 11.7.1988 and 11.8.1988 issued by the Department for transfer of the land to the unauthorized occupants." Thus, it was "illegal and void. Hence it is not approved. The amount of Rs. 50250.00 deposited by the applicant be returned to him immediately."
Aggrieved by the order, the petitioner filed an application u/s 25(2) praying that the order passed by the Chief Settlement Commissioner be set aside. A copy of this application is at Annexure P. 15 with the writ petition. Vide order dated March 31, 1994, the Chief Settlement Commissioner accepted the petitioner''s prayer. A copy of the order is at Annexure P. 16 with the writ petition.
Smt. Saraswati Devi, respondent No. 5 filed a petition u/s 33 claiming that she was the owner-in-possession of the Plot No. 4 for the last 30 years. She was in possession of about 200 square yards out of the land measuring 670 square yards and had constructed sheds in that portion. She had filed an application on March 20, 1989. It was received in the office of respondent No. 3 on March 31, 1989. She had requested for allotment of land. No order was passed. The request of Mr. R.N. Aggarwal (the present petitioner) had been duly declined by the Chief Settlement Commissioner in the year 1989. The order passed by the successor in office on March 31, 1994 was illegal. A copy of this petition is at Annexure P. 17 with the writ petition.
The case was considered by the Commissioner and Secretary to Government Haryana, Rehabilitation Department. Vide order dated December 1, 1998, the petition filed by the 5th respondent was decided. It was held that the order dated March 31, 1994, could not be sustained. However the claim of Respondent No. 5 for the allotment of the land was also rejected on the ground that "there is nothing on record to show that she has been in possession of this plot since the year 1982 and there was any substantial construction on it." The land was ordered to be disposed of in accordance with the Rules.
Aggrieved by this order, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition. He prays that it be quashed.
In response to the notice of motion, a written statement has been filed by the Tehsildar (Sales) on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 to 4. It has been admitted that vide letter dated July 11, 1988, the State Government had issued instructions that the area under unauthorized occupation be offered for transfer to the occupants. These instructions were clarified vide letter dated August 11, 1988. It was inter-alia provided that "no vacant site be offered for transfer.", Still further, vide letter dated July 19, 1989, it was provided that land "in unauthorized occupation on which substantial construction has been raised on or before 1.1.1982 be offered for transfer to the occupants." The petitioners'' claim that he had applied for allotment of the land vide application dated November 14, 1970 has been denied saying that it is not "forthcoming on record." Vide application dated February 27, 1989, the petitioner had applied to the Tehsildar (Sales) for transfer of the land measuring 600 square yards. The area at the spot was measured. It was found to be 670 square yards. Vide letter dated March 14, 1989, the Tehsildar had offered it to the petitioner @ Rs. 300/- per square yard. The petitioner had deposited 25% of the price. Vide letter dated May 18, 1989, the Tehsildar had permitted the petitioner to raise construction after getting the plan approved from the competent authority. The offer was subject to approval by the Chief Settlement Commissioner. It has been further averred that the Tehsildar (Sales) (Mr. Sohan Lal) had made a reference to the Chief Settlement Commissioner. It was observed that the plot was lying vacant. The policy of the Department was not applicable. In view of the report "made by the Tehsildar (Sales), Faridabad and survey committee", the Chief Settlement Commissioner vide order dated October 16, 1989 had declined the grant of approval to the transfer of land.
The respondents admit that the petitioner had challenged the order of the Chief Settlement Commissioner. His petition was accepted by the authority vide order dated March 31, 1994. In pursuance to this order, a notice for deposit of Rs. 4,26,650/- was issued to the petitioner. This demand had been made @ Rs. 700/- per square yard as the area was found to be commercial and it measured 687 square yards. However, ultimately, the order was set aside by the Chief Settlement Commissioner on the petition filed by respondent No. 5. Various grounds was raised by the petitioner have been controverted.
A separate written statement was filed by respondent No. 5. She claims to be in exclusive possession of the land for the last more than 30 years. The sheds constructed by her exist at the spot. The other averments made in the petition have been controverted.
On December 11, 2000, the case was posted before a Bench of which one of us (Jawahar Lal Gupta, J.) was a member. An offer was made on behalf of the petitioner. It was stated that he was willing to pay the price of the "plot @ Rs. 1500/- per square yard in lump sum." The case was adjourned to enable the counsel for the State to obtain instructions. On a later date viz. April 1, 2002, counsel for respondent No. 5 had offered to pay for the land @ Rs. 5000/- per square yard. On this day, counsel for the petitioner had withdraw the offer of Rs. 1500/- per square yard. The case was adjourned to May 20, 2002 to enable counsel for the fifth respondent to pay the amount. When the case was taken up on May 20, 2002, it was stated by the counsel for the fifth respondent that she had not been able to arrange the funds. Thus, the counsel were heard on merits.
Mr. S.P. Gupta, counsel for the petitioner contended that the order dated October 16, 1989 had been passed ex-parte. Thus, it was rightly set aside by the Chief Settlement Commissioner vide his order dated March 31, 1994. While passing the impugned order it was wrongly assumed that the authority had reviewed the earlier order. It was highlighted that the Officer had decided to allot the land to the petitioner after visiting the spot. This action was in conformity with the past practice. It was also contended that the allotment made to the petitioner in March 1989 was final and that no approval of the Chief Settlement Commissioner was, in fact, required. On these premises, the counsel contended that the order dated December I, 1998, a copy of which has been produced as Annexure P. 18 deserved to be set aside. The claim made on behalf of the petitioner was controverted by the counsel for the respondents.
The basic issue is - Does the petitioner fulfill the conditions of eligibility for the allotment of the land?
The petitioner has based his claim on the instructions issued by the State Government vide letter dated July 11, 1988, August 11, 1988 and July 19, 1989. the three documents have been produced as Annexure P.1 to P.3 with the writ petition. By the first letter, it was inter-alia provided that area "in unauthorized occupation may be offered for transfer to the occupants...." The rate for residential sites was fixed at Rs. 300/- per square yard. It was further providedj that the occupants will be "liable to pay the occupation charges of the land their unauthorized occupation to be determined by the Managing Officer." Vide letter dated August 11, 1988, it was clarified that "vacant sites and land which is already in possession of the department should not be offered to anybody in any case...." It was further mentioned that the lists of unauthorized occupants had already been prepared and no property or site other than that incorporated in the list should be offered. Still further, vide letter dated July 19, 1989, it was directed that "the sites in unauthorized occupation on which substantial construction has been raised on or before 1.1.1982 may be transferred to the occupants." The instructions were given retrospective effect. It was declared that these shall be "deemed to be incorporated in the instructions dated July 11, 1988...."
On a perdsal of the instructions, it is clear that allotment could be made to an unauthorized occupant only if he had been in unauthorized occupation and a substantial construction had been raised by him on or before 1.1.1982. What is the factual position?
The petitioner alleges that he had applied for allotment of the land on November 14, 1970. A copy of this application has been produced as Annexure P.5 with the writ petition. A perusal of this application shows that the petitioner had categorically stated that the land "is lying unused." It was, thus, not in his occupation.
The petitioner further claims that he had filed a fresh application on February 27, 1989. A copy of this application has not been produced on record. Why? There is no explanation. Thus, there is nothing on record to show that the petitioner had ever claimed that he was in occupation of the land and that he had raised a substantial construction thereon by January 1, 1982. Inevitably, the answer to the question as posed above has to be in the negative.
In paragraph 4 of the writ petition, it has been averred that "the petitioner filed a fresh application on 27,2.1989 before Tehsildar (Sales-cum-Managing Officer, Faridabad in response to Tehsildar''s letter No. 499 dated 18.3.1985 (P.8) that an evacuee piece of land measuring 600 square years....is in petitioner''s possession for the last eight years i.e. since 1981 and this plot may be transferred to him under the Government policy." The letter dated March 18, 1985 as referred to by the petitioner is at Annexure P.8 with the writ petition. This letter, reads as under:-
"With reference to your letter dated 19.2.85 addressed to Chief Settlement Commissioner Rehabilitation Deportment, Haryana, Chandigarh on the subject cited above. You are directed to submit the original conveyance/sale deed issued by the Department immediately so that the case be examined."
A perusal of the above shows that the "petitioner had not been called upon to submit any application. On the contrary, he was asked to "submit the original conveyance/sale deed issued by the department...."This letter was in response to the petitioners'' letter dated February 19, 1985. Thus, it is clear that vide letter dated March 18, 1985, the petitioner was not called upon to submit any application. In fact, he had sent a letter on February 19, 1985. The contents of the letter are not known. Thus, the petitioner''s claim that he had filed a application dated February 27, 1989 in response to the letter dated March 18, 1985 does not appear to be correct.
Irrespective of the above, it is the petitioner''s own case that the Tehsildar (Sales) had ordered the transfer of the land to the petitioner vide letter dated March 14, 1989. A copy of this order is at Annexure P.9 with the writ petition. A perusal of this letter shows that the land was "provisionally offered". Still further, the petitioner was further informed that he was "liable to pay damage charges/rent of the above-mentioned area under unauthorized occupation within a month of receipt of the communication...." all this was subject to the approval of the competent authority. All this was subject to the approval of the competent authority. In paragraph 9, it was specifically provided that "the offer for the transfer of the area in question will be subject to the approval of the competent authority as per law/rules/instructions." It is, thus, clear that the offer made to the petitioner was provisional. It was subject to the approval of the competent authority. However, the case was not even put up for approval. The Tehsildar (Sales) had hastened to issue a ''No objection Certificate'' vide letter dated May 18, 1989. A copy of this certificate is at Annexure P. 10. The petitioner was informed that this office had no objection "if construction on Plot No. SS1 plot No. 3, NH-2, NIT Faridabad (as raised) after getting the plan approved from the Faridabad Complex Administration....as you have paid 25% cost of the said plot." Why this hot-haste? It appears that the Tehsildar (Sales) was taking extra interest in the matter. In this context, it deserves notice that the petitioner was called upon to pay for the land at the rate of Rs. 300 per square yard, this was the rate for the plots in the ''residential'' area. It is not even the petitioner''s case that he has a house on Plot No. 3. In fact, he claims to have a factory on this plot. This is clearly indicative of the fact that the Tehsildar (Sales) had not even cared to check the facts from the file much less than see the situation at the spot.
It also appears that the original incumbent of the office of the Tehsildar (Sales (Mr. Ram Rattan) who had made the offer of allotment to the petitioner, was transferred. Mr. Sohan Lal had succeeded him. He made a report to the Chief Settlement Commissioner. A copy of the order has been produced by the petitioner as Annexure P. 12. It does not bear any date. However, a perusal of this report shows that Mr. Sohan Lal had categorically mentioned that-
"the said land is lying vacant on the spot. The instructions dated 11.7.1988 and 11.8.1988 issued by the department for the transfer of land to the unauthorized occupants are not applicable in this case and the Tehsildar (Sales) was not authorized to offer the vacant plot for transfer to any body on the price fixed by the Government. Besides, none is in possession of the same. However, Rs. 50250/- were deposited by the offeree on 11.4.89. The case is submitted to the Chief Settlement Commissioner, Haryana for taking necessary action regarding approval as required under condition No. 9 of the offer letter issued to the office."
It appears that this report had been made sometime after May 10, 1989. It also appears that the department had also constituted a ''Survey Committee''. Even this committee had submitted a report. After consideration of the above quoted report and that of the survey committee, the Chief Settlement Commissioner found that the "plot is lying vacant". He, thus, held that the offer had been made in contravention of the instructions dated 11.7.1988 and 11.8.1988 issued by the department for transfer of the land to the unauthorized occupants. Thus, the approval was declined and it was directed'' that the amount deposited by the petitioner be returned to him.
Mr. Gupta contended that the order passed by the Chief''Settlement Commissioner was ex-parte..lt was violative of the principles of natural justice. Thus, it was vi-,-tiated.
This contention cannot be accepted. The Tehsildar (Sales) had made a provisional offer. It was subject to approval by the competent authority. It has not been shown that the Tehsildar was competent to make the offer. In any event, it was subject to the approval of the authority. No rule has been pointed out under which the Chief Settlement Commissioner may have been under an obligation to hear the petitioner. Still fiirther, even the principles of natural justice are not attracted. Grant of approval was a purely administrative matter. It was within the jurisdiction of the authority dealing with public property to decide as to whether or not it ought to be allotted to the petitioner. In any event, even if it is assumed that principles of natural justice were attracted, it appears that no prejudice had been caused to the petitioner, as already noticed, under the instructions issued by the Government, the land could have been allotted to the petitioner only if it was found that it was in his unauthorized occupation and that he had raised a substantial construction on or before December 1, 1982. nothing has been placed on record to show that the petitioner had been actually in occupation of the land and that he had raised any construction whatsoever much less than a substantial construction on it by the prescribed date viz. January 1, 1982.
Mr. Gupta contended that the Tehsildar (Sales) had illegally placed the matter before the Chief Settlement Commissioner for approval. In fact, no approval was needed.
The contention is wholly untenable, the land was allotted to the petitioner vide letter dated March 14, 1989. This is the petitioner''s trump card. It was categorically stipulated in this letter that the allotment was provisional. It was subject to the approval of the competent authority. The petitioner had accepted the offer unconditionally. He is estopped from questioning the condition. Still further, nothing was pointed out to show that a junior person like the Tehsildar was competent to make final orders for allotment of valuable property. Thus, the contention is rejected.
Mr. Gupta pointed out that the Chief Settlement Commissioner (Mr. M.P. Gupta, IAS) had accepted the petitioner''s plea vide order dated March 31, 1994, after a visit to the spot. A copy of this order is at Annexure P. 16 with the writ petition. Thus, the findings as recorded by the Chief Settlement Commissioner vide his order dated October 16, 1989 (annexure P. 14) cannot be sustained. Is it so?
The petitioner had on his own showing filed a petition u/s 25 of the Act. A copy of this petition is at Annexure P.15 with the writ petition. In this petition, it was inter-alia stated that "the plot in question is surrounded by boundary walls and a shed is also constructed thereon." Thus, it had been wrongly reported that "the plot is lying vacant." No proper enquiry had been made. He also pleaded that the order dated October 16, 1989 had been passed without making compliance of order 9 Rule 1 CPC and Rule 117 of the DP (C&R) Rules, 1955." A perusal of this application shows that it was not even remotely suggested that the petitioner had raised substantial construction by January 1, 1982. It is no doubt true that the petitioner had claimed that a shed had been constructed. When? How much area was covered? Was there any machine in the shed? There is a studied silence on the matter.
A perusal of the order shows that during the course of the hearing, it had been pointed out that:-
"i) A vacant plot was offered to the petitioner" in violation of Government instructions." The survey committee had made a report in this case that the plot in question was lying vacant.
ii) The order dated October 16, 1989 had "attained finality and it cannot be reviewed at this belated stage."
iii) Even "as per report dated 24.11.1993, plot in question is lying vacant at present and there is no construction at all. The petitioner has also not submitted any documentary proof that the plot in question has been in his possession since long and there is any substantial construction prior to 1.1.982. Raising a boundary walls and that too after the offer do not entitle him for transfer of land in question."
iv) The then Tehsildar (Sales) "violated the said instructions and offered the vacant plots like the present one and the offers of these plots had to be set aside by the then Chief Settlement Commissioner."
Lastly and more significantly, it was pointed out that "the then Tehsildar(Sales) Shri Ram Rattan had issued the offer letters in respect of the vacant plots and that is whey he was dismissed from service". Despite this, the Chief Settlement Commissioner (Mr. M.P. Gupta) had proceeded to accept the petitioner''s claim. What did he find? It may be noticed in his own words. The findings read as under:-
"I have given a careful thought to the submissions of the parties and have gone through the record. The order of my predecessor dated 16.10.1989, was an ex parte order passed on the back of the petitioner. The petitioner filed present application as soon as it was brought into his notice. The order of my predecessor dated 16.10.989 is set aside. As per report of Tehsildar (Sales), Faridabad, dated 24.11.1993, the land in question is bounded by boundary wall. That area is 687 sq. yards and not 670 sq. yds. There is no independent approach for this area except through the factory of the petitioner. On my last visit to Faridabad, I also inspected the site. In front there is petitioner''s factory on which building has been raised and machinery has been installed. At the back of this factory is the MOR Land measuring 687 sq. yds. The MOR (Ministry of Rehabilitation) land is surrounded by high pucca boundary wall on three sides and has become the part and parcel of the petitioner''s factory. The petitioner is using the MOR land for storing of factory goods and one machinery room has been built thereon. It is difficult to distinguish as to which is the MOR land and which one is factory area of the owner. At the back of MOR land is another building. On right and left side of the land in question, there are pucca buildings. In this way the MOR land in question is a land-locked area and cannot be disposed of in any manner except by giving to the petitioner on the commercial rates as prescribed by the Government. Also the offer made by the Tehsildar (Sales), Faridabad and by issuing No Objection Certificate in favour of the petitioner for construction of building thereon, the department is estopped from going back on the contract already arrived at between the department and the petitioner.In hundreds of such cases approval has already been given in Faridabad and it will be an act of discrimination if approval is refused in the present case. Keeping in view of the above facts the petition is accepted. Tehsildar (Sales), Faridabad is allowed to recover commercials rates as prescribed by the ......for this area be recovered immediately and also the ground.....under rules. The petition is accepted with the above observations."
On a perusal of the order, it is apparent that the questions as raised by the departmental representative were not at all considered. The instructions issued by the Government were not even noticed. The officer had passed the order without adverting to the stipulation in the instructions that there should be possession and substantial construction by January1 1, 1982. Mere fact that a boundary wall had been erected and the land was being used for storing factory good or that one machinery room had been built was not enough to conclude that the land ought to be allotted to the petitioner. Still further, the Tehsildar(Sales) and the Survey Committee had reported that the land was lying vacant. These reports had been accepted by the competent authority vide order dated October 16, 1989. The possibility of the construction having been raised after that due was not even considered.
Mr. Gupta pointed out that the officer had visited the site. It may be so. However, the fact remains that even he did not find that the construction had been raised by January I, 1982.
In view of the above, it is not surprising''that the fifth respondent had challenged the order. The authority has found that the plot was lying vacant. The instructions issued by the Government vide letters dated July 11, 1988 and August 11, 1988 were not applicable to this case as Tehsildar (Sales) was not authorised to allot vacant plot to anybody on the price fixed by the Government. It was also rightly found that the Chief Settlement Commissioner had no authority to review the order. There was no clerical or arithmetical mistake warranting interference u/s 25(2). The petitioner had made no substantial construction. We find no infirmity in the view taken by the authority.
Mr. Gupta referred to the decision of a learned Single Judge of this Court in Chand Krishan Mehta and another Vs. Union of India and others, . This was the case of an unsatisfied claimant. It has no relevance to the facts of the present case. Reference was also made to the decision in Shri Guru Singh Sabha v. State of Haryana and Ors. 1991 P.L.J. 551. In this case, the allotment of land in favour of the tenants was set aside. The case has no parity with the facts in the present case. Reference was also made to the decision of a learned Single Judge in State of Punjab and Ors. v. Chhaju Singh and Ors. 1986 P.L.J. 523. In this case, it was found that there was violation of the provisions of Rule 117 in as much as notice was not served on the persons to whom the allottee had sold the land. No such question arises in the present case.
Lastly, Mr. Gupta submitted that setting aside of an ex parte order does not amount to review. Thus, the finding recorded by the Revisional Authority that the Chief Settlement Commissioner had reviewed the order of his predecessor cannot be sustained.
The contention cannot be accepted. The allotment made to the petitioner was subject to the approval of the competent authority. No hearing was required to be given at the time of consideration of the issue of approval. In any event, it has been found by us that the petitioner was not eligible for allotment as he did not fulfil the conditions of eligibility. Thus, the petitioner can derive no advantage from the decision in Tarlok Nath v. Chief Settlement Commissioner and Ors. (1968)70 P.L.R. 657.
Mr. Gupta also contended that land has been allotted to various persons in similar circumstances. He pointed out that C.M. No. 18941 of 1999 had been filed for bringing on record the names and particulars of the persons who were similarly situate as the petitioner viz. Shri Ramji Lal and Smt. Raj Dulari. Thus, it was contended that the action of the respondents was violative of Article 14.
This contention is misconceived. Two wrongs never make a right. Even if it is assumed that some persons were allotted land, it has been found that petitioner was not eligible. He did not fulfil the conditions for the allotment of the land. He cannot complain of discrimination.
Before parting with the case, it may be observed that the total land in the dispute measures 687 square yards. It is located in a commercial area. It is a valuable public property. The instructions embody guidelines for the departmental representatives. These do not, however, confer an indefeasible right on an unauthorised occupant to claim allotment at a concessional rate. In any event , the claim for allotment can be allowed only when the specified conditions are clearly fulfilled. In the present case, the petitioner does not fulfil the conditions of eligibility. Thus, the allotment could not have been made to him. Another fact, which deserves mention, is that the petitioner had offered to buy the land at the rate of Rs. 1500/- per square yard. Respondent No. 5 had offered to pay @ Rs. 5000/- per square yard. Though both and failed to honour their offers, the fact remains that the land is valuable. In this situation, it would only be fair if it were sold for its actual price by an open auction or by adopting some other suitable method. This is precisely the import of the impugned order.
The competent authority has exercised its power. There is error apparent from the record. No violation of any statutory provisions has been shown. There is no equity in his favour. The petitioner is trying to grab valuable property at a throw away price, his effort has been defeated. There is no ground to interfere with the order in exercise of the discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution.
No other point was raised.
In view of the above, it is held that:-
Under the instructions by the Government, it was inter-alia provided that vacant land could be allotted to the occupant only if he had remained in possession and raised substantial construction thereon by January 1, 1982. The petitioner does not, for obvious reasons, question the validity of circulars. Thus, he had to fulfill the prescribed conditions of eligibility.
In the present case, there is nothing on record to show that the petitioner fulfilled these conditions. Thus, he was not eligible for the allotment of the allotment of the land.
The action of the Tehsildar(Sales) in making the allotment to the petitioner without finding him to be eligible was wholly illegal. In any case, it was provisional and subject to the approval of the Chief Settlement Commissioner. In the present case, the approval had been declined by the competent authority vide order dated October 16, 1989. There is no illegality in the order. There is no violation of the principles of natural justice. In any event, no prejudice had been caused to the petitioner by the failure of the authority to give him any notice, as he was wholly ineligible.
The Chief Settlement Commissioner has no power to review the order passed by his predecessor. The condition stipulated in Section 25(2) empowered him to modify the order only if there was a clerical or an arithmetical mistake. No such mistake existed. In any event, the order dated March 1, 1994 was invalid in as much as the issues raised by the departmental representative were not considered.
There is no illegality or infirmity in the order dated December 1, 1998. Thus, it cannot be quashed. The findings have not been shown to be wrong.
The land is valuable. The instructions do no confer any indefeasible right on an authorised occupant to claim allotment. It is only when the conditions are clearly fulfilled that such a claim can be consider. The offers made by the petitioner and respondent No. 5 show that the price of the land is well above the rate at which the department was offering it. Since, it has been held that the petitioner was not eligible for the allotment, it would only be fair that the land is now sold by an open auction or otherwise at its actual price.
In view of the above, the writ petition is dismissed.
However, the parties are left to bear their costs.