Delhi High Court
Custodian Of Evacuee Property vs Shri Jaswant Singh Narag Since Deceased ... on 21 October, 2024
Author: Manmohan
Bench: Tushar Rao Gedela, Manmohan
$~44
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ LPA 1050/2024, CAV 520/2024, CM APPL. 61565/2024, CM
APPL. 61566/2024
CUSTODIAN OF EVACUEE PROPERTY .....Appellant
Through: Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Standing
Counsel with Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha,
Ms. Mussarrat B. Hashmi & Mr.
Sami Sameer Siddiqui, Advocates.
versus
SHRI JASWANT SINGH NARAG SINCE DECEASED
THROUGH HIS LRS SMT. DALBIR NARAG & ORS.
.....Respondents
Through: Mr. Sunil Goyal, Mr. Satish Chawla,
Ms. Anita Chawla Narang, Mr. Nitin
Kala & Mr. Anuj Sharma,
Advocates.
% Date of Decision: 21st October, 2024
CORAM:
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TUSHAR RAO GEDELA
JUDGMENT
MANMOHAN, CJ : (ORAL)
1. Present appeal has been filed under Clause X of the Letters Patent
Act, 1866 against the order dated 29th August, 2024 passed by a learned
Single Judge in W.P.(C) No.11895/2024, arising out of the order dated 16th
May, 2024 passed by the Appellate Officer, District Judge-01 (Central
District), Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi in Revision Petition being MCA DJ No.
77/2019 titled "Custodian of Evacuee Property & Anr. vs. Jaswant Singh
Narag (now deceased) Thr. Lrs." filed under Section 15 of the Evacuee
Interest (Separation) Act, 1951 arising out of the orders dated 4th April,
2019 and 2nd May, 2019 in CEP No. 16/2016 passed by the Competent
Officer, SCJ-Cum-RC (Central), Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi, whereby the
learned Single Judge has dismissed the underlying writ petition of the
appellant finding no infirmity in the view taken by the authorities below.
2. Facts culled out from the impugned order, are enumerated
hereunder:-
2.1 The underlying writ petition concerns land comprising Khasra
Nos.291, 296, 297, 298, 305 and 314 of Masjid Moth, New Delhi, having
Khewat No. 30/8/32, Masjid Moth, Delhi. The subject property was put up
for auction by the Competent Officer in 1956. Late Mr. Jaswant Singh,
being a displaced person, submitted a bid of INR 1,30,000/- and 10% of bid
amount in cash at the time of fall of hammer and was the successful auction
purchaser. The balance auction money was allowed to be paid by way of
adjustment out of claim compensation. Thereafter, late Mr. Jaswant Singh,
the auction purchaser, offered his claim compensation along with his other
associates. Provisional possession was given by the Department on 30th
May, 1960 with effect from the date of auction i.e., 14th September, 1956
and thereafter, actual possession of land was also given to him on 23rd July,
1960 by the Department with effect from date of auction i.e, 14th
September, 1956.
2.2 In the meantime, the subject property was acquired in 1963 on behalf
of Delhi Development Authority for Masjid Moth residential scheme for
which notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for
short "LA Act") was issued in 1957 and 1959, while the auction had taken
place in 1956.
2.3 Subsequently, on 23rd February, 1970, notice was issued by
appellant/Custodian Department to Late Mr. Jaswant Singh, informing him
that the balance auction money had to be paid, and failure would result in
cancellation and forfeiture of earnest money. Subsequently, dispute arose
with respect to claim compensation between Mr. Jaswant Singh and his
associate Mr. Ganga Ram, whose claim compensation was to be adjusted
towards the cost of the subject property. Late Mr. Jaswant Singh agitated
the matter in respect of adjustments from Mr. Ganga Ram and filed an
appeal before the Authorised Chief Settlement Commissioner, who through
order dated 01st June, 1970, allowed the appeal and directed the balance
payment of Mr. Ganga Ram to be adjusted in favour of Late Mr. Jaswant
Singh towards the sale/auction price of the subject property. The matter was
then further agitated by the aggrieved party before this Court. On account of
such inter se disputes between the auction purchaser and his associates, the
whole claim compensation could not be adjusted against the auction price.
2.3 In this background, when a request was made for issuance of sale
certificate, the appellant/Custodian Department raised an objection stating
that since the land in question had been acquired in 1957 and 1959, and the
subject property stood vested in Government, a sale certificate cannot be
issued. After considering this objection, the Competent Officer issued an
order on 4th April, 2019, directing the appellant/Custodian Department to
issue the sale certificate for the property in question, provided that the legal
heirs of Late Mr. Jaswant Singh furnish an indemnity bond to the extent of
Rs.1,00,000/-. Subsequently, the Competent Officer vide order dated 2nd
May, 2019 issued direction for execution of sale deed and the Sub-
Registrar, Mehrauli was directed to file a compliance report within 15 days.
2.4 Thereafter, the matter was carried up in revision under Section 15 of
the Evacuee Interest (Separation) Act, 1951 before the Appellate Officer,
District Judge-01 (Central), Tis Hazari Court, Delhi, who vide order dated
16th May, 2024 modified the order of the Competent Officer. It was directed
that in addition to furnishing of the indemnity bond to the extent of Rs.1
Lakh by the legal heirs of late Mr. Jaswant Singh, and also subject to the
deposit of amount outstanding as recorded vide order dated 15th December,
2003 i.e., Rs.14,626.89/- towards principal together with interest @ 12%
per annum w.e.f. 15th December, 2003, till date, towards the shortfall in
auction sale price, with the office of DDO, (E P Cell), Vikas Bhawan, ITO,
New Delhi, sale certificate pertaining to the suit land in question be issued
in favour of the legal heirs of late Mr. Jaswant Singh, in terms of orders
dated 04th April, 2019 and 02nd May, 2019 as modified vide order dated 17th
October, 2019.
2.5 It was further observed therein that the applicant's claim for
compensation, refund or any other monetary claim which may not have
been decided vide order dated 04th April, 2019, shall be considered and/or
decided on its own merits in accordance with law and the present order nor
the orders dated 04th April, 2019 and 02nd May, 2019, as modified vide
order dated 17th October, 2019, shall have any bearing in relation to such
claims.
2.6 Aggrieved by the order dated 16th May, 2024, the
appellant/Custodian Department had preferred the underlying writ petition
which culminated into present appeal challenging the impugned order dated
29th August, 2024.
3. Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, learned counsel for the appellant states
that the appellant had, by the communication/notice dated 23rd February,
1970, directed the respondent- Late Sh. Jaswant Singh to deposit the
balance amount within fifteen (15) days which the respondent failed to
comply with. He states that as the balance auction price was not deposited
despite notice, the Sale Certificate could not be issued. He relies upon Rule
90(15) of the Displaced Persons (Compensation & Rehabilitation) Rules,
1955 (for short "DP (C&R) Rules 1955") to submit that the Managing
Officer can issue a sale certificate only upon the realisation of the purchase
price in full. Such balance amount not having been paid within fifteen (15)
days of the aforesaid notice, no right accrues to the respondent to demand
sale certificate.
4. He further states that as per Rule 90(11) of the DP (C&R) Rules,
1955, it was incumbent upon the respondent to produce the Settlement
Commissioner Treasury Challan in proof of deposit of balance money. This
period of fifteen (15) days could only be extended by the Chief Settlement
Commissioner. Since no such communication emanating from the Chief
Settlement Commissioner has been placed on record by the respondent
evidencing extension of time for deposit, the respondent is not entitled to
issuance of sale certificate. He states that the respondent deposited the
balance money admittedly only on 12th June, 2024. According to him, the
learned Single Judge overlooked this provision of law causing prejudice to
the appellant.
5. He states that in any case, the subject land was already acquired by
the Central Government and handed over to the Delhi Development
Authority (for short "DDA"), free from all encumbrances, even before the
sale certificate was issued, thus no right, title or interest enures to the
respondent qua the subject land. He further states that the learned Single
Judge did not examine the issue that once the land was acquired, the
Competent Officer as also the Appellate Officer lost their jurisdictions to
pass any order in connection therewith. According to him, at best, it could
only be the Civil Court/Reference Court under the LA Act, which could
possibly exercise jurisdiction. Such being the case, learned Single Judge
could not have passed the impugned judgement.
6. Dilating further, he refers to various provisions of the Delhi Land
(Restriction on Transfer) Act, 1972 with respect to prohibition and
regulation of transfer of lands once the same are acquired under the LA Act
or any other similar Act. Thus, he states that when the subject lands were
acquired in the year 1963, there could be no transfer of interest in such
lands to the respondent by way of issuance of sale certificate, that too, after
such a great lapse of time. He also states that the Central Government,
being the admitted owner, post acquisition, the Custodian Department did
not have any jurisdiction to issue a sale certificate. In such circumstances,
he states that the learned Single Judge erred in passing the impugned
judgement.
7. He states that the reliance upon the judgement of the Supreme Court
in Saraswati Devi v. DDA, (2013) 3 SCC 571 by the authorities below is
completely misplaced. He states that in that case, the appellant had paid the
entire balance amount whereafter a sale certificate was issued. He states
that even in that case, the challenge to acquisition proceedings at the behest
of the appellant was rejected.
8. He also states that once the respondent did not deposit the balance
amount within fifteen (15) days period as directed vide communication
dated 23rd February, 1970, the amount paid earlier was liable to be
forfeited.
9. Learned counsel for the appellant also states that the note generated
in the year 2003 by the appellant Department disclosing the shortfall of Rs.
14,626/- or the submission made in the year 2015 by the officials of the
appellant before the Competent Officer with respect to giving no objection
in issuing sale certificate in case balance amount auction price is paid, is
concerned, was made on wrong impression and in ignorance of the factual
and legal position. He states that post acquisition, the Custodian
Department can no longer issue any sale certificate. He thus prays that the
impugned judgement be set aside and consequentially, the orders of the
Authorities below be also quashed.
10. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondents
vehemently opposes the submissions of the appellant. He reiterates the
reasoning and findings rendered by the learned Single Judge generally. He
relies upon and read the relevant paragraphs of Saraswati Devi (supra)
extensively to state that the present case is identical on facts and the ratio
laid therein would be applicable. He emphasises that in any case, it is only
for the purpose of compensation alone that the issuance of sale certificate
would be relevant. He also states that the aspect of inter se disputes
between the associates of the respondent has no concern with the issuance
of sale certificate in the present case, particularly when the respondent has
already paid the balance auction amount.
11. He also relies upon the statement of the officers of the Custodian
Department made before the Competent Officer, pursuant to which the
balance auction amount was deposited to state that the appellant has by its
conduct lost the right to refuse the sale certificate. He states that the appeal
be dismissed with costs.
12. After having heard the learned counsel for the parties, considering
the impugned judgement and examined the record, this Court is of the
considered opinion that the impugned judgement calls for no interference.
13. It is undisputed that despite the notice dated 23rd February, 1970, the
appellant raised demands and ostensibly received the payments too. It is
also undisputed that the officials of the appellant Department also appeared
before the Competent Officer on 15th January, 2015, and gave a statement
that the said Department has no objection in issuing the sale certificate if
the respondent informs the amount that stands paid by it till date. It was
specifically noted in the order that the predecessor of that Court, vide the
order dated 15th December, 2003, had noted a sum of Rs.14,626/- as the
shortfall towards the sale price. Consequent upon such statement, the
Competent Officer had directed the appellant to give details of the payment
received by it and the balance amount. It is apparent from the above, and as
noted by the learned Single Judge that the appellant has at least, till the year
2015, never sought to avoid the sale.
14. It is also undisputed that the appellant challenged the orders dated 4th
April, 2019 and 2nd May, 2019 issued by the Competent Officer directing
issuance of sale certificate by way of revision petition before the Appellate
Authority which too was rejected vide the order dated 16th May, 2024.
Consequent thereto, the balance auction amount was also deposited by the
respondent on 12th June, 2024, by way of demand draft.
15. It is apparent that the appellant despite issuing the communication
dated 23rd February, 1970 accepted payments and issued further
communication in the year 2003 demanding the balance auction price from
respondent. Besides, the officials of the appellant gave a specific statement
of the Department having no objection to the issue of sale certificate on the
remaining amount being paid before the Competent Officer on 15th
January, 2015. Thus, the argument that the respondent was precluded from
seeking issuance of sale certificate for not complying with the notice dated
23rd February, 1970, in terms of the Rules is untenable. The appellant
would also be bound by observations made by the Competent Officer in the
order dated 15th January, 2015 which also notes the shortfall in amount
which was recorded in the order dated 15th December, 2003, by the
predecessor of the Competent Officer.
16. The argument predicated on the acquisition of the subject land by the
Central Government in the year 1963, even before the balance sale
consideration was paid, thus impeding issuance of sale certificate by the
appellant is untenable. The issuance of sale certificate is not for the
purposes of annulling the land acquisition proceedings or for putting the
respondent in possession of the subject land, but for the purposes of
compensation, if any, which the respondent may be found to be entitled to.
This would be the natural consequence of the ratio of the judgement in
Saraswati Devi (supra) if applied to the facts of this case. In that case, the
Supreme Court was examining the challenge to land acquisition
proceedings made by one Saraswati Devi, in the facts which are similar to
those obtaining in the present case. During such consideration, the Supreme
Court examined the effect of Rule 90 of the DP (C&R) Rules 1955 and
while dismissing the challenge to the land acquisition proceedings,
ultimately observed at the end that the appellant therein would be entitled
to claim compensation and that the dismissal of the said appeal would not
come in her way. The observation in para 49 of Saraswati Devi (supra) is
extracted hereunder:
"49. It is, however, clarified that the appellant's claim for
compensation, refund or any other monetary claim shall be considered
and/or decided on its own merits in accordance with law and the
present judgment shall have no bearing in relation to such claim."
17. It is manifest that the Supreme Court in Saraswati Devi (supra)
while dismissing the challenge to the land acquisition proceedings
ultimately held that such dismissal would not impede the rights, if any, of
Saraswati Devi to seek compensation etc., qua the land on account of it
being acquired under the LA Act. Evidently, the Supreme Court did not
find any fault with the issuance of sale certificate for which the balance
auction price was paid much after the land was acquired. Similarly, the sale
certificate in the present case too cannot be refused or questioned by the
appellant.
18. Moreover, this Court finds that the learned Single Judge had refused
to interfere with the orders passed by both the Competent Officer and the
learned Appellate Authority and limited the issuance of sale certificate only
to the compensation, if any, that the respondent may be found entitled to. In
view of the facts in this case as also following the judgement in Saraswati
Devi(supra), this Court does not find any merit in the appeal.
19. Resultantly, the appeal with pending applications, if any, is
dismissed. No order as to costs.
MANMOHAN, CJ
TUSHAR RAO GEDELA, J
OCTOBER 21, 2024/rl
