Devi Das Kapur vs Union Of India (Uoi) Thr. ...
2003 Latest Caselaw 482 Del

JUDGMENT

S.K. Mahajan, J.

1. The petitioner had purchased the evacuee property in open auction held on 27.6.1956 for a sum of Rs. 1,37,500/-. The bid of the petitioner was accepted on 10.7.1956. Since some portions of the property were encroached upon by occupants of the adjoining of the property, which also belonged to a Muslim evacuee, there was delay in handing over physical possession of the property to the petitioner. There was delay in the payment of the price of this property by the petitioner to the respondent as well. There was also a confusion relating to the stair case of the property, which also resulted in delay in handing over possession of the property to the petitioner. After the entire price of the property was paid by the petitioner, the sale certificate was executed in favor of the petitioner on 30.8.1967. The Managing Officer while issuing the sale certificate made the sale effective from 31.3.1967. The petitioner feeling aggrieved of the order of the Managing Officer making the sale certificate effective w.e.f. 31.3.1967 filed a revision petition under Section 24 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954 (in short referred to as the Act). The Settlement Commissioner by order dated 27.3.1968 accepted the revision of the petitioner and directed amendment of the sale certificate so as to make the sale effective w.e.f. 10.7.1956, i.e., the date on which the bid of the petitioner was accepted. After the order was passed by the Settlement Commissioner, a report was made by the Assistant Settlement Commissioner on 14.5.1970 to the Chief Settlement Commissioner for moving the Central Government by way of a suo-motto revision under Section 33 of the Act. In this suo-motto revision, the order of the Settlement Commissioner was set aside by the Central Government by its order dated 24.12.1970 and it was held that the sale would be effective only from 31.3.1967 in terms of the orders of the Managing Officer. This order of the Central Government dated 24.12.1970 was challenged by the petitioner by filing a writ petition being CWP NO. 491/1971 in this Court.

2. By a judgment dated 13.2.1985, this Court after forming an opinion that at the time when the sale was confirmed the petitioner had not paid the full price and the full price having been paid by the petitioner only on 31.3.1967, the sale certificate would be effective only from that date and not from the date when the bid of the petitioner was accepted by the Managing Officer, dismissed the writ petition. This order was not challenged by the petitioner and it became final between the parties.

3. Before the sale certificate was issued by the managing officer in favor of the petitioner there arose some dispute in relation to a portion of the property in possession of R.S. Mulkh Raj and Sons and after hearing the parties who had raised the dispute, the tenancy, which was in the name of Ishwar Das Sahni was regularised by the Managing Officer in the name of R.S. Mulkh Raj and Sons. The petitioner challenged the order of the Managing Officer cancelling the tenancy of Ishwar Das Sahni and regularising the same in favor of R.S. Mulkh Raj and Sons by filing an appeal under Section 22 of the Act before the Settlement Commissioner. The Settlement Commissioner by his order dated 11.5.1970 accepted the appeal and set aside the order of the Managing Officer holding that the mere fact that the bid of the petitioner was confirmed in his favor on July 10, 1956 gave him a right of hearing before any order could be passed affecting his interest as such rights were vested in him after the confirmation of sale in his favor. This order was challenged by respondent No. 4 by filing a revision petition before the Chief Settlement Commissioner. By an order dated 31.8.1971, the revision petition was dismissed and the order of the Settlement Commissioner was upheld. Respondent No. 4 filed a petition under Section 33 of the Act before the Central Government challenging the order of the Chief Settlement Commissioner dated 31.8.1971. The Central Government by order dated 8.6.1977 allowed the revision petition, set aside the order of the Settlement Commissioner and the Chief Settlement Commissioner and upheld the order of the Managing Officer holding that as the sale certificate was issued only on 30.8.1967, which had taken effect from 31.3.1967, when the total price of the property was paid, the petitioner did not have any right in the property till that date and there was thus no question of any opportunity of hearing being given to him by the Managing Officer before passing the order dated 29.12.1965 regularising the tenancy in favor of R.S. Mulkh Raj and Sons. The order of the Central Government dated 8.6.1971 has now been challenged by the petitioner by filing the present writ petition.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment of this Court reported as Mohd. Yusuf Vs. Union of India 1970 PLR (Delhi Section) 241 and a Division Bench judgment of the Punjab and Haryana High Court reported as Lila Krishan and others Vs. Union of India and others 1970 PLR 719 to contend that the sale in favor of a person whose bid is accepted by the Managing Officer takes effect from the date of the acceptance of the bid and immediately on acceptance of the bid, a vested right is created in him and no action could be taken by the Managing Officer or by any other officer under the provisions of the Act without giving an opportunity of hearing to the purchaser. It is submitted that acceptance of bid creates a right in favor of the purchaser and irrespective of the issue of sale certificate, the sale will take effect not from the date of issue of sale certificate but from the date of the acceptance of the bid. The submission, therefore, is that as the bid of the petitioner was accepted on 10.7.1956, the Managing Officer could not regularise the tenancy in the name of respondent No. 4 without first giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.

5. There is a basic fallacy in the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner inasmuch as by judgment dated 13.8.1985 passed in CWP No. 491/971, this Court has already rejected this contention of the petitioner. The Court while delivering the judgment in the said case has held that as the petitioner had not paid the full price at the time when the sale was confirmed by the Managing Officer and full price was paid only on 31.3.1967, the sale certificate would be effective only from that date and not from the date of confirmation of sale. The petitioner cannot now re-agitate the question, which has already been answered by this Court in CWP No. 491/1971. The judgment in CWP No. 491/1971 will act as resjudicata against the petitioner. In case the sale cannot take effect from the date of confirmation of bid of the petitioner and has to take effect only from the date of issue of sale certificate as held by this Court in CWP NO. 491/1971, this Court cannot accept the contentions of the petitioner that the Managing Officer did not have a right to regularise the tenancy in favor of respondent No. 4 after the acceptance of bid without giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. The petitioner in terms of the judgment passed in CWP No. 491/1971 did not have any right, title or interest in the property prior to the issue of sale certificate and the Managing Officer, therefore, had the power under the Act to pass order regularising the tenancy in favor of respondent No. 4. In view of the judgment of this Court in CWP No. 491/1971, which is resjudicata between the parties, the judgments cited by learned counsel for the petitioner are not applicable to the facts of the present case. There are no merits in the present petition and the petition is, accordingly, dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.