Nazrul Haq And Ors. vs Deputy Chief Settlement ...
1993 Latest Caselaw 39 Del

JUDGMENT

P.N. Nag, J.

(1) In this writ petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has sought the quashing of (i)order dated 26.5.1972 passed by Shri S.R. Kapoor, Authorised Chief Settlement Commissioner, New Delhi and (Annexure 6 to the writ petition)and (ii) order dated 24.7.1974 passed by Shri Gulab L.Ajwani, Deputy Chief Settlement Commissioner/Officer with delegated powers of CentralGovernment, whereby the claim of the petitioner for adjusting the amount against the price of the property allotted to him for his prior association of compensation of one Mr. Brahma Nand, claimant, has been ignored.

(2) The relevant facts briefly are that the petitioner was allotted property No. XIV/8051 (New). He was held eligible to the transfer of this property as a non-claimant and he deposited Rs. 2.804.00 representing20^ of the price on 9.7.1959, the price of the property being Rs. 14.016.00 He associated the compensation of one Shri Brahma Nand claimant in C.A.F.No. RG/9,5/B/Sholapur/178 towards the balance cost of the property to the extent of Rs. 11.212.00 and filed association papers and other requisite documents. The said claimant associate Brahma Nand also associated withMohd. Usman for payment of the balance price towards property No.XIV/8046. The amount payable to the claimant associate against Statement of Account issued to him was Rs. 17,280.00. While processing the C.A.F.the Regional Settlement Commissioner. Bombay adjusted Rs. 10,344.56towards R.F.A. loan due from one Shri Hasomal Ladharam for whom, the claimant associate stood surety/guarantor. He further adjusted Rs. 6,068.00towards balance price of property No. XIV/8046 purchased by Shri Mohd.Usman and the balance of Rs. 867.44 was adjusted towards the balance price of the property No. XIV/8051 purchased by the petitioner. The petitioner filed an appeal against this processing of the C.A.F. of the claimant associate which was dismissed vide order dated 26.5.1972 (Annexure 6).Against the dismissal of the aforesaid appeal, the petitioner filed a revision which was also dismissed vide order dated 24.7.1974 (Annexure 8). Against the dismissal of the appeal and revision, the present petition has beenfiled.

(3) Both the authorities below have held that it cannot be held that the association papers of the petitioner had been tendered prior to the association papers tendered by respondent No. 6 and therefore, those papers should have been given preference. It has further been held that the amount of R.F.A. loan due from Shri Hassomal Ladharam had been correctly recovered/adjusted from the compensation payable to his surety Shri Brahma Nand, respondent No. 5.

(4) Mr. Ramesh Chandra, learned Counsel for the petitioner,vehemently contested the findings given by both the authorities below.According to him there is no categoric finding given by them that the association papers of the petitioner had not been tendered prior to the association papers tendered by respondent No. 6, in the absence of which,such finding requires to be set aside. Further, according to him, the amount of R.F.A. loan due from Shri Hassomal Ladhram was not a public due and,therefore, it cannot be recovered and adjusted from the compensation payable to his surety Shri Brahma Nand, respondent No. 5.

(5) I have carefully gone through the judgments of the authorities below and am of the view that they have scrutinised the materials available on record and they have come to a correct finding which cannot be termed as perverse as no reasonable man can reach such a conclusion. On the other hand, I find there is no error apparent on the face of the record and no interference is called for.

(6) However, having regard to the fact that the property was allotted to the petitioner some where in 1959 and he has also paid a part of the amount and there is a serious dispute of the balance amount payable and due from the petitioner, which is the subject-matter of litigation for long,it would be highly unjust and unquotable to dispossess him at this stage and