Delhi High Court
Union Of India vs Hans Raj Sharma on 21 July, 2008
Author: Ajit Prakash Shah
* HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ LPA No.363/2008
UNION OF INDIA ..... Appellant
Through Mr.Suresh Kait, Advocate
versus
HANS RAJ SHARMA ..... Respondent
Through Nemo
CORAM:
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR
1. Whether reporters of the local papers be allowed to see the
judgment ?n
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not ?n
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ?n
JUDGMENT
21.07.2008
CM No.9824/2008(Delay)
For the reasons stated in the application, delay in filing the
appeal is condoned. The application stands disposed of.
LPA No.363/2008
1. This appeal is directed against the order of the learned single
Judge whereby the impugned order dated 2nd December, 1980 of
the Deputy Secretary, Government of India, Department of
Rehabilitation passed in exercise of suo moto jurisdiction under
Section 33 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and
Rehabilitation) Act, 1954 (for short the Act) is set aside.
2. Brief facts giving rise to this appeal under Letters Patent are
that Quarter Nos.C/5 & C/6, Motia Khan, New Delhi were allotted
to Smt.Maya Devi. It appears that Maya Devi paid some money
towards the cost of these quarters and thereafter made an
application to the effect that she was unable to make payment for
both the quarters and her son Hans Raj Sharma, the present
respondent, who is in occupation of quarter No.C/6, refuses to
make payment towards the instalment and so, either this be
cancelled or cost of the quarters may be recovered from her son.
By proceeding dated 5th May, 1960 it was ordered to split up the
allotment and accordingly quarter No.C/6 Motia Khan was
allotted/transferred to Hans Raj Sharma, the respondent. The
respondent paid a sum of Rs,859.60 as 1/5th (20%) cost on 9th
May, 1960 and also paid a further sum of Rs.3462.23 by way of
association in August, 1960. On 31st March, 1967 the respondent
was issued a show cause notice for payment of Rs.3290/- towards
balance cost, arrears of rent and interest etc., in respect of quarter
No.C/6, Motia Khan. The said show cause notice was challenged
by the respondent before the Authorised Settlement Commissioner
who quashed the demand dated 31st March, 1967 by his order
dated 31st August, 1968. The Settlement Commissioner held that
there is no justification for the demand as in terms of the
agreement executed between the Department and Smt.Maya
Devi, the value of the quarters could not enhanced much less
unilaterally. Nearly twelve years thereafter the Deputy Secretary,
Government of India, Department of Rehabilitation, New Delhi in
exercise of powers under Section 33 of the Act set aside the order
dated 31st August, 1968 of the Authorised Chief Settlement
Commissioner and directed to issue a fresh demand.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that there is no
period prescribed under Section 33 of the Act and the learned
single Judge ought not to have interfered with the order of the
revisional authority passed under Section 33 of the Act.
4. It is true that Section 33 of the Act does not prescribe for a
period of limitation yet the revisional authority has to exercise that
power within a reasonable period. Ordinarily the power has to be
used in circumstances to 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. Learned counsel for
the appellant was unable to point out that any of these conditions
are satisfied in the instant case. The amount demanded on the
basis of the revaluation is also insignificant . In the circumstances,
we see no ground to interfere with the order of the learned single
Judge. The appeal has no merit and is dismissed.
CHIEF JUSTICE
S.MURALIDHAR
JULY 21, 2008 JUDGE
"v'
