Punjab-Haryana High Court
Inder Pal Sood vs Fc Pb.&Anr on 22 October, 2024
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:140310
CWP-2803-1991 (O/M) -1- 2024:PHHC:140310
101 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CWP-2803-1991 (O/M)
Date of decision : 22.10.2024
Inderpal Sood ...... Petitioner(s)
Versus
The Financial Commissioner, Punjab and others ...... Respondent(s)
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSH BUNGER
Present :- Mr. Anish Setia, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. Navneet Singh, Senior DAG Punjab.
Mr. Aman Pal, Ms. Sweta Beniwal, Advocates
for respondent No. 2.
Mr. Sandeep Wadhawan, Advocate
for applicant in CM-20440-2005.
-.- -.-
HARSH BUNGER, J. (ORAL)
1. Petitioner (Inderpal Sood) has filed the instant civil writ
petition under Articles 226/227 of Constitution of India, inter alia,
seeking a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the order
dated 16.08.1990 (Annexure P-4), passed by learned Financial
Commissioner (Appeals), Punjab (in short 'Financial Commissioner'),
whereby the petition under Section 33 of Displaced Persons
(Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954 (in short '1954 Act'), filed
by present petitioner against order dated 08.01.1990 (Annexure P-3),
passed by learned Deputy Commissioner-cum-Chief Settlement
Commissioner, Amritsar (in short 'Commissioner'), was dismissed and
order dated 08.01.1990 (Annexure P-3), was upheld.
1 of 7
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:140310
CWP-2803-1991 (O/M) -2- 2024:PHHC:140310
2. Briefly, the petitioner (Inderpal Sood) claims that he and his
brother (Satpal), were displaced persons from West Pakistan and they had
verified claims in lieu of their properties abandoned in Pakistan, for
which they submitted compensation applications before the concerned
authority.
2.1 It transpires that the petitioner alongwith his brother
participated in an open auction, conducted on 29.01.1960 by District Rent
and Managing Officer, Amritsar (working under Ministry of
Rehabilitation, Government of India), wherein they claim to have
purchased property No. 614-615, situated in Town Patti, District Amritsar,
for an amount of Rs. 20,000/-. According to the petitioner, he and his
brother-Satpal were asked to furnish indemnity bond and also the
particulars of their verified claims covered under their compensation
applications, so that the compensation amount due to them could be
adjusted against the sale price of the auctioned property. It is stated that
the District Rent and Managing Officer issued Form-F (Annexure P-1)
on dated 26.05.1960, transferring the aforesaid purchased property in
favour of petitioner and his brother-Satpal, whereunder, the Managing
Officer was authorized to realize the balance amount due from the
petitioner and his brother-Satpal as arrears of land revenue under
Section 20 of 1954 Act. It is further stated that a part of the purchased
property was under the tenants.
2.2 It appears that an amount of Rs. 6782.88 paise was adjusted
towards the sale price of the purchased property out of the compensation
claim of Shri Satpal (brother of petitioner) and on 09.12.1981, Shri Satpal
(father of respondent No. 2) applied for finalization of the auction sale.
2 of 7
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:140310
CWP-2803-1991 (O/M) -3- 2024:PHHC:140310
Petitioner is also stated to have submitted a similar application for
finalization of sale on 05.10.1982. It appears that the file pertaining to
the aforesaid sale was misplaced in the office of Managing Officer,
whereupon the Settlement Officer (Urban) directed reconstruction of the
sale file, vide his order dated 17.08.1982, however, of no avail.
2.3 It transpires that the Assistant Registrar of Rehabilitation
Department passed an order dated 23.07.1984 (Annexure P-2), cancelling
the sale in favour of petitioner and his brother-Satpal and further holding
that the property was of the Government and the same be disposed of by
way of re-auction.
2.4 The order dated 23.07.1984 (Annexure P-2) was challenged
by petitioner and his brother by filing two separate appeals, which were
dismissed by learned Sales Commissioner on 15.01.1988. Thereafter, the
petitioner and his brother (Satpal) preferred two revision petitions before
the Chief Settlement Commissioner, Amritsar, which were also dismissed,
vide order dated 08.01.1990 (Annexure P-3).
2.5 Apparently, no further challenge was raised to the aforesaid
orders at the behest of Shri Satpal (father of respondent No. 2).
Accordingly, the said orders attained finality as regards Shri Satpal is
concerned. However, petitioner further preferred a petition under
Section 33 of 1954 Act before the learned Financial Commissioner, which
was also dismissed, vide order dated 16.08.1990 (Annexure P-4).
3. In the aforementioned circumstances, the petitioner has filed
the instant civil writ petition for the relief(s), as noticed above.
4. The only contention raised by learned counsel for petitioner
is that the auction sale in favour of the petitioner and his brother-Satpal
3 of 7
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:140310
CWP-2803-1991 (O/M) -4- 2024:PHHC:140310
could not have been cancelled for non-payment of balance amount as the
said amount was to be recovered by the Government by way of arrears of
land revenue. In this regard, the reliance is placed upon a judgment
of this Court in Mehanga Ram Versus Financial Commissioner,
Punjab 1994 PLJ 113.
5. Heard.
6. In the instant case, the auction sale in favour of the petitioner
and his brother (Satpal) was cancelled, vide order dated 23.07.1984
(Annexure P-2) by holding as under :-
" I have gone through the case minutely. I have heard
in detail Sh. J.R. Aggarwal-counsel for Sh. Sat Pal Sood
and Shri Puran Chand Arora-counsel for Sh,. Inder Pal.
Sh. J.R. Aggarwal argued that property No. 614-15/Patti
had been purchased by the Sat Pal for an amount of
Rs. 20,000 and that Rs. 6782/88 paise had been adjusted
against the sale price. For realisation of the balance
amount, notice ought to have been issued under
Rule 90 (13) of the Displaced Persons (C and R) Act, 1954
which has not been issued. He is ready to pay the balance
amount. This amount be got deposited and sale deed be
issued. No amount has been deposited by Inderpal and his
claim stood exhausted. Thus Inderpal is not share holder in
the property. Sh. Puran Chand Arora counsel for Sh.
Inderpal stated by making reference of letter dated 26.5.60
of Form 'F' that Inderpal is co-sharer in the purchase of the
property and that he is prepared to pay for the amount
payable by him. Therefore, the sale deed may be issued in
the name of both the purchasers.
I have inspected property No. 614-615/Patti. Here
the office of the State Bank of Patiala is running and made
enquiry from the Manager of this Bank. The Bank Manager,
4 of 7
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:140310
CWP-2803-1991 (O/M) -5- 2024:PHHC:140310
told me in this regard that he had taken on lease the
building in the year 1960 on rent from Baij Nath s/o Lekh
Raj and nobody has realised the rent of this building
after 1970. Therefore the rent of this building is being
deposited in the name of Baij Nath s/o Lekh Raj. The
documents of the rent deed would be in Head Office
Jalandhar. Letter dated 5.7.84 has been received from the
Head Office State Bank of Patiala, Jalandhar in this office
which shows that this building had been taken on rent as
lessee but the lease deed is not traceable to them. The copy
of letter dated 26.5.60-Form 'F' depicts that the co-sharer
of the purchase of the property are Sat Pal and Inder Pal
but no amount was paid by Inder Pal for this property and
that no claim is due to Inder Pal. He had also filed affidavit
on 11.9.82 that he had no share on this property.
Therefore I have reached the conclusion that Inderpal
is not co-sharer in anyway in this property. Sh. Sat Pal
Sood had got adjusted the amount of Rs. 6782/88 paise in
the purchase of this property and the balance amount has
not been deposited by him so far. He had purchased this
property in 1960 but he has not filed any application for
deposit of the balance amount within this twenty years. He
had applied to obtain the lease deed on 9.12.81 when the
sale file was requisitioned. By this office. The Settlement
Officer, New Delhi vide his order dated 18.9.82 directed
that the amount of Rs. 6782/88 paise stands deposited
against property No. 614-615 and that this property had
been auctioned. Auction-purchaser must have acceptance
letter but Sh. J.R. Aggarwal-counsel for Sat Pal Sood had
not adduced the same which could show that the bid of this
property had been accepted. The original file relating to
this sale is not traceable in the Delhi office or in the office
of the District Rent and Managing Officer, Amritsar from
which it could be proved as to what is the position of this
5 of 7
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:140310
CWP-2803-1991 (O/M) -6- 2024:PHHC:140310
property's auction. The auction-purchaser has been silent
for twenty years. It transpired from the site-inspection of
the property that State Bank of Patiala is running in this
property and they told we that this building had been taken
on rent from Sh. Baij nath son of Lekh Raj but they do not
have any lease deed. Since the auction purchaser Sat Pal
has not obtained the sale deed from the department, he
could not give the property on lease. Sh. Baij Nath son of
Lekh Raj who gave the property on lease are some other
persons which are not known to the court. It is not even
known to the counsel for Sat Pal and Inderpal as where
does he live. The Bank has stopped paying rent to Baij
Nath after the year 1970.
Therefore, no valid party has possession of this
property nor it is in the ownership of any person.
Therefore, this property belongs to the Government and it
be disposed of by way of auction. The application of Sat
Pal is filed. Sat Pal who can seek remedy for the amount
got adjusted against payment of this property from any
court of competent jurisdiction."
7. A perusal of the above extracted findings would show that
the petitioner (Inderpal Sood) had not paid any amount for the property in
question nor any claim was due to him. It is further made out that the
petitioner submitted an affidavit on 11.09.1982 stating that he had no
share in this property.
7.1 During the course of hearing, a pointed query was raised to
learned counsel for petitioner as to whether the petitioner had submitted
the aforesaid affidavit on 11.09.1982 stating that he had no share in this
property. In response, learned counsel for petitioner admitted the filing of
aforesaid affidavit dated 11.09.1982 by the petitioner and also the
contents thereof.
6 of 7
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:140310
CWP-2803-1991 (O/M) -7- 2024:PHHC:140310
7.2 In my considered view, once the petitioner knowingly
abandoned his claim in respect of the property in question, accordingly,
he has no right to challenge the cancellation of the auction sale made,
vide order dated 23.07.1984 (Annexure P-2), which has been further
upheld upto learned Financial Commissioner.
8. That apart, at the cost of repetition, it is noticeable that Shri
Satpal (brother of petitioner and father of respondent No. 2) had also
accepted the aforesaid order dated 23.07.1984 (Annexure P-2) cancelling
the auction sale; in as much as that after his appeal and revision were
rejected by the authorities below, he chose not to agitate his claim any
further.
9. As regards the reliance placed by learned counsel for
petitioner on the case of Mehanga Ram (supra), suffice it to say that the
said judicial pronouncement is distinguishable on facts and the same does
not advance the cause of the petitioner.
10. In the aforementioned facts and circumstances, I do not find
any merit in the present petition and the same is accordingly dismissed.
11. Pending application (s), if any, shall also stand closed.
(HARSH BUNGER)
JUDGE
22.10.2024
sjks
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes / No
Whether reportable : Yes / No
7 of 7
