Delhi High Court
Hans Raj Sharma vs Union Of India (Uoi) on 23 August, 2007
Author: S R Bhat
Bench: S R Bhat
JUDGMENT
S. Ravindra Bhat, J.
1. The petitioner has challenged an order of the Deputy Secretary, Government of India, Department of Rehabilitation dated 2nd December, 1980 whereby in exercise of suo moto jurisdiction under Section 33 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954 he was asked to deposit an amount of Rs. 1398/-. The petitioner sought and was provided legal aid by the Delhi High Court Legal Services Committee.
2. Quarter Nos. 5 and 6, Motia Khan were allotted to Smt. Maya Devi, the petitioner's mother. According to the terms she had to pay consideration in seven equal Installments. Payments were later segregated. The rights for Quarter No. 6 were transferred to the petitioner by the Settlement Commissioner's office. He was required to pay the proportionate amount of the quarter so allotted to him. It is not disputed that he did so. In fact the impugned order records that the amount of Rs. 4321.83/- by way of cash payment and adjustment was made. In this background, he was issued a show cause notice on 31.3.67 asking him to deposit Rs. 3290/- for the quarter. This show cause notice was challenged by him.
3. The settlement Commissioner by his order dated 31.08.68 decided in favor of the petitioner. The operative portion of the order reads as follows:
I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner. It is not clear from the record as to how that amount of Rs. 3290/0 has been worked out by the Managing Officer. The notice dated 31.3.1967 calls upon the petitioner to pay up the subsequent Installments due on 31.10.1966 amounting to Rs. 3290/-. The notice, to say the least, is vague and leaves the recipient no wiser, as I find from the record that no separate agreement was executed within the petitioner in respect of Quarter No. 6 and it was only a departmental arrangement to receive half of the price under the original agreement from Shri Hans Raj.I am given to understand that this amount has been worked out after enhancing the cost of these quarters. It is not clear from the record as to how this had been so done. However, if the price of the quarter has been enhanced, I see no justification for doing the same as under the terms of the agreement executed between the Department and Smt. Maya Devi, the value of the quarters could not be enhanced much less unilaterally.
In view of what has been said above, I quash the demand created as a result of the notice dated 31.03.1967. However, if any amount is due from the petitioner towards the balance price of the quarter transferred to him under terms of the agreement dated 15.10.1959 and as consequence of the subsequent splitting up of the quarters, the M.O. shall take appropriate steps to recover the same.
4. The additional demand made by respondents was thus held to be inapplicable and they were permitted only to recover costs of the balance of the quarter transferred to him in terms of the agreement.
5. The revisional authority appears to have woken up after 12 years and reopened the entire matter. The circumstances which led to the reopening of the proceedings are unclear. By the impugned order the revisional authority proceeded to hold that full payment would mean that the cost of the quarter along with arrears of rent to be paid. The Central Government formed the opinion that there was a mistake in valuation and on this score, the petitioner had to pay enhanced amount. On this reasoning, the order dated 31.08.68 was set aside; additional demands were made from the petitioner.
6. In these proceedings, Rule was issued on 01.04.81. During pendency of the petition an interim order was made.
7. Learned Counsel for the respondent justified the impugned order and submitted that Section 33 of the Act did not prescribe any period of limitation within which the revisional authority could exercise its jurisdiction. Counsel contended that once a mistake in valuation was discovered, the authority could act and recover the admitted charges in a non-discriminatory manner without reference to any point of time.
8. I have considered the materials on record. While it is no doubt true that Section 33 of the Act does not prescribe for a period of limitation yet the revisional authority has to be alive to the circumstances of each case. The said provision reads as follows:
33. Certain residuary powers of Central Government:- The Central Government may at any time call for the record of any proceeding under this Act and may pass such order in relation thereto as in its opinion the circumstances of the case require and as is not inconsistent with any of the provisions contained in this Act or the rules made there under.
9. In this case the revisional authority has proceeded to exercise jurisdiction and reinstated a demand 12 years after it was set aside. This power is to be used sparingly and in cases where there are glaring discrepancies or misrepresentations. The revisional authority, however, appears to have taken upon itself to reapprise valuation on the basis of a mistake said to have been committed by the Central Government. By its nature, the power is to be used in circumstances as would cure an illegality or irregularity in the orders of any subordinate authority. It cannot be resorted to unless the order in question occasions failure of justice, or is in some manner deleterious to public interest. None of these conditions existed; the petitioner was rudely stirred after he could legitimately assume that the matter had achieved a quietus. The amount demanded on the basis of such revaluation too was not so significant as to make any difference. Therefore, the impugned order cannot be sustained.
10. In view of the above findings, the petition has to succeed. The impugned order is hereby set aside. Rule made absolute. No costs.
