AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
M S. Liberhan, J.—The only legal question posed in this Letters Patent Appeal is whether the respondent (Hari Singh respondent No. 1) is entitled to purchase the evacuee land at a reserved price.
The facts requiring mention are as follows : The respondent got the land in dispute allotted In the year 1962 representing that he had left the land in Pakistan It was revealed in the year 1963 that he had left no land in Pakistan. Resultantly, the allotment was cancelled vide order dated March 23, 1963 which was upheld right up to the Supreme Court.
Keeping in view the loan taken by him and long possession, the respondent was allowed to purchase the land in dispute vide order dated February 3, 1975 of the Chief Settlement Commissioner in terms of Rules 63 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Rules, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules) at the rates then prevailing. Rule 63 reads as under :
"Where any land has been allotted to a displaced person who does not hold any verified claim in respect of agricultural land, such land may be transferred to such person if he (a) makes an initial payment of 10 per cent of land at the time of transfer of the land, and (b) agrees to pay the balance of the value of the land in fifteen equal annual installments Provided further that if such person holds a vertitied claim in respect of any other property, the compensation payable in respect of such property may be adjusted against the value of such land provided further that if such person had filed any claim in respect of any rural building which was rejected as a result of the Notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Rehabilitation No. 3 (25) Gen./50/11, dated the l3th September, 1950 (amending Notification No 3(14) Gen./50/11, dated the 27th. May, 1950) issued under the Displaced Persons (Claims) Act, 1950 (44 of 1950) or under Rule 65, he may be permitted to adjust the price of such land and other public dues against the amount which would have been payable to him, if his claim had not been so rejected the amount so adjusted being treated as a rehabilitation grant paid under section II of the Act: Provided further that where such person had a multiple allotment, the Settlement Commissioner may cancel the allotment and may allot the land to some other person who holds a verified claim in respect of agricultural land."
The allottee respondent challenged the area as well as the price of the land before the various Authorities which culminated in a final order, dated February 15, 1983 of the Financial Commissioner Revenue, who found that the Tehsildar (Sales) rightly assessed the price which ought to have been paid by the petitionerrespondent No. 1 within the stipulated time. It was further observed that even though two further opportunities were given to the respondent to pay the stipulated price, yet he failed to do so. Thus, he has forfeited his claim for purchase of the land.
The order of the Financial Commissioner, Revenue, was challenged, in the Writ Petition which was allowed by the learned Single Judge inter alia holding that the respondent was entitled to purchase the same and was liable to pay the price in the manner prescribed by Rule 62. It'' was observed that the Chief Settlement Commissioner had neither any justification nor jurisdiction to say vide his order, Annexure P. 2, that the land in the possession of the petitioner be transferred to him at Government rates then prevailing for this land. He could only direct the payment of that price which was envisaged by Rule 56. It. was further observed than any subsequent non payment of price or extension of time was of no consequence, as the respondent was challenging the price of the land before the various Authorities. The Hon''ble Single Judge referred to Rule 62 which reads as under :
"Where any person has been allotted any agricultural land before the commencement of these rules in respect'' of his verified claim relating to agricultural land left in West Pakistan, the following provisions shall apply :
(a) If the land allotted to such person is less than the area which should have been allotted to him under these rules, an additional area of land may, if available be allotted to him to make up the deficiency;
(b) If the land allotted to such person exceeds the area which should have been allotted to him under these rules and if the allottee wishes to retain the excess land, he shall be required to pay the value of the excess land in such installments as the Settlement Commissioner may determine;
Provided that if such perrson holds a verified claim in respect of any other property, the net compensation in respect of such property may be adjusted against the value of the excess land.
ExplanationFor the purpose of this rule and the next succeeding rule, the value of land shall be determined at the rate mentioned in rule 56."
Rule 56 envisages only conversion of standard acres into cash and reads as below;
"For the purpose of payment of compensation under rules 51 and 53 to 55 each standard acre of land may be converted into cash :
(a) where the compensation converted in terms of standard acres does not exceed fifty standard acres, at the rate of Rs. 450/ per standard acre,
(b) where the compensation converted in terms of standard acres exceeds fifty standard acres,
(i) in respect of the first fifty standard acres at the rate of Rs. 450/ per standard acre,
(ii) in respect of the remaining standard acres, at the rate of Rs. 350/ per standard acre."
The learned Single Judge after reading Rules 56, 62 and 63 together, came to the conclusion that the respondent was entitled to the land, though the allotment was subsequently cancelled, as he did not have a right to the same as he left no land in Pakistan. The order of the Financial Commissioner Revenue was quashed.
The learned counsel for the appellants contends that Rules 56, 62 and 63 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Rules were not applicable to the State of Punjab before reorganisation and nor have those rules been made applicable to the State of Haryana. It was urged that Rule 56 as well as Rule 62 of the Rules did not apply to the State of Punjab and Patiala and East Punjab States Union. Thus, the allottees in them State had no right to insist that the excess land should be transferred to them at the price fixed in terms of Rule 62. There is no provision in the Act or the Rules whereunder the Department was bound to make the offer and that too at a price and relied on Jagmohan Singh v. Union of India and others, ILR (1951) 1 Punjab 148, wherein it was held as follows:
"that in view of the provisions of Section 14 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1955, all agricultural land in Punjab forms part of the compensation pool and vests in the Central Government free from all encumbrances and has to be utilised in accordance with provisions of the Act and the Rules made thereunder. Section 20 confers power of transfer of property out the compensation pool and one of the modes of transfer is by sale. The offer to sell is exgratia and not as a matter of law as in the case of persons governed by Rule 62 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Rules. It is axiomotic that an owner of the property cannot be forced to sell property at any particular price, unless there is a statutory provision to that effect. Rules 56 and 62 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Rules do no apply to the allottees of lands in the State of Punjab and Patiala and East, Punjab States'' Union and so the allottees in these States cannot insist that the excess land should be transferred to them at the price fixed in Rule 62. There is no provision in the Act or the Rules whereunder the Department is bound to make the offer and that too at a fixed price. Therefore, the offer to sell at the market price cannot be said to be discriminatory inasmuch as, the allottees in the State of Punjab and the Patiala and East Punjab States Union, and the allottees outside these States do not fall in one category but belong to, distinct categories. It is now well settled that different classes can be differently treated and such differential treatment will not be violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. So far as The Act and the Rules are concerned, the fact of the matter is that the petitioners have no right to demand the transfer or the excess allotment of land at a particular price. The land belongs to the Central Government and the Central Government has the right to sell it, at the price it deems fit. So far as the petitioners are concerned, there is no vested right in them to get the transfer of excess land. If they want the land they can take it only if it is offered to them and at the price at which it is offered. They have no right to dictate terms to the Department."
The facts and circumstances of the case in hand are pari materia to those of Jagmohan Singh''s case (supra). I am in respectful agreement with the law laid down in the said case. Nothing contrary has been pointed out. No provision has been pointed out at the bar as to how Rules 56, 62 and 63 are applicable to the State of Haryana. Even otherwise, it had become a package deal property and was disposable under the Rules dealing with the package deal properties. It was observed in Chief Settlement Commissioner, Punjab and another v. Ram Singh and others, AIR 1987 S C. 1834, wherein Rule 73(2) of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Rules was interpreted, that a displaced person has got no legal right to get the land allotted in excess of his entitlement and insist on the'' land being sold to him either against cash payment or by way of adjustment against his verified claim. It was further observed that the land being in excess of his entitlement and allowing him to purchase the same would defeat the benign purpose to compensate those who have suffered on account of partition but would result in rewarding those who have gained undue advantage by mistake or otherwise and placing a premium on such mistakes, cannot be countenanced.
The basic design of the respondent appeared to be to hold the land which he got illegally allotted. Inspite of allotment having been cancelled, he was not even ready to pay its price to retain it. It was a moldroit clumsy approach of the respondent to claim the land in dispute without paying any money. It is inconceivable that the respondent wished at his own request to purchase the land in dispute, which the State Government for benevolent reasons had permitted him to purchase at the price claimed by the State, still he should be permitted to challenge the price fixed by State while permitting him to purchase. The respondent cannot be permitted to turn round and challenge the price of the land. Once he had sought the favour from the State he cannot claim the said favour in his own terms. II Standard Acres 91/4 units of land was allotted to the respondent for a paltry consideration of Rs. 21,820/
It was observed in Chief Settlement Commissioner and another v. Sampuran Singh and others, 1946 RLR 69 than no direction can be given to the State that a person shall be entitled to purchase the excess land held by him on the basis of reasonable price obtaining'' at the time proprietary rights were granted in his favour.
The respondent deserves no sympathy inasmuch as he is in possession of the land in dispute almost since 1960, and he has been litigating with the State on one pretext or the other i.e. firstly cancellation of the allotment was challenged and on having failed in the judicial hierarchy in that, the respondent adopted another course of litigation challenging the price of the land which he'' himself offered to purchase for which he had no right to purchase. Keeping the facts in true perspective, the respondent cannot be permitted to get premium over his consistency of litigating on one pretext of the other particularly when he got the allotment having no right in the same.
For the reason recorded above, the Appeal succeeds, the judgment Of the Hon''ble Single Bench in writ petition is set aside and. ''Writ Petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. J.V. Gupta, J.I agree.