Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Plot No. 168 situate in Jalandhar City, an evacuee property was included in the compensation pool under Sec. 14 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation Compensation) Act, 1954. This plot was put to auction sale on August 24, 1959. The appellant who was displaced person made the highest bid of Rs.20,000, it was provisionally accepted and he deposited one-fifth of the amount at the conclusion of the auction, but he failed to deposit the balance amount. The Managing officer therefore cancelled the auction sale. On a Revision Petition filed by the appellant, the Chief Settlement Commissioner by his order dated March 30, 1968 set aside the order of the Managing officer and allowed time to the appellant to deposit the balance of purchase price by May 30, 1968. The appellant again failed to deposit the amount within time, consequently Settlement officer by his order dated 2.10.1968 cancelled the auction sale made in appellant's favour. Thereafter the property was put to auction sale on January 17, 1969. At that auction sale Sohan Lal and Sunder Lal, respondents who are also displaced persons made their highest bid for Rs.27,025 and they deposited 20% of the amount at the conclusion of the auction. Meanwhile the appellant preferred an appeal against the order dated 2.10.1968 cancelling the auction sale before the Asstt. Settlement officer, but the appeal was rejected on 2.4.1969. The appellant preferred a Revision Petition before the Chief Settlement Commissioner but that too was dismissed on August 13, 1969. Thereafter the appellant made a petition under sec. 33 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation & Rehabilitation) Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) before the Central Government. Shri Rajni Kant exercising the delegated powers of the Central Govt. set aside the order cancelling the auction sale held on August 24, 1959 and granted 15 days' time to the appellant for depositing the balance of the purchase price by his order dated February 6, 1970 with a condition that on failure to deposit the balance of the auction price the petition shall stand dismissed. The appellant again failed to deposit the amount within time, but on a request made by the appellant Shri Rajni Kant extended time till February 28, 1970 for depositing the remaining amount of purchase money. Admittedly the appellant deposited the remaining auction price by February 28, 1970. The respondents filed a Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India before the Punjab & Haryana High Court challenging the order of Shri Rajni Kant dated February 6, 1970 as well as his subsequent order extending time till February 28, 1970 and also for issue of a direction to the authorities to finalise the auction sale held in their favour on January 17, 1969. A learned Single Judge after hearing the parties dismissed the petition. On a Letters Patent Appeal a Division Bench of the High Court allowed the appeal set aside the order of the learned Single Judge dismissing the writ petition, and quashed the order of Shri Rajni Kant granting time to the appellant to deposit the balance amount of the sale price under sec. 33 of the Act. The Division Bench directed the authorities to finalise the auction sale held in respondents' favour. Aggreived the appellant has preferred this appeal on a certificate granted by the High Court.

The Central Govt. had ample jurisdiction to issue administrative directions regulating the payment of compensation to the displaced persons by sale of the urban agricultural property. The view taken by the High Court in Bishan Singh's case (supra) is not sustainable. The High Court was therefore in error in holding that the auction sale held in appellant's favour on August 24, 1959 was illegal and void .

The second question relates to the validity of the order of Shri Rajni Kant the officer to whom power under s. 33 was delegated, extending time to enable the appellant to deposit the auction sale money. Shri Rajni Kant by his order dated 6.2.70 exercising the delegated powers of the Central Govt. under sec. 33 of the Act set aside the order cancelling the auction sale held in August 1959 and permitted the appellant to deposit the balance of the purchase money within fifteen days from the date of the order with a default clause that on his failure his petition would stand dismissed. In accordance with that order appellant was entitled to deposit the money till February 21, 1970. It appears that on appellant's request the office prepared a challan which was valid up to February 20, 1970. The appellant went to the State Bank on February 20, 1970 to make the deposit but due to rush he could not make the deposit. On his application Shri Rajni Kant extended the time permitting the deposit by 28.2.1970 as a result of which a fresh challan was prepared which was valid up to 28.2.1970 and within that period appellant deposited the balance purchase money. The subsequent order of Shri Rajni Kant was challenged by the respondents and the High Court has quashed that order, although that order was not before the High Court as none of the parties filed the same. The respondents who had challenged the order of Shri Rajni Kant should have filed a copy of the order. In the absence of the order under challenge the High Court could not quash the same. Normally whenever an order of Govt. Or some authority is impugned before the High Court under Art. 226 of the Constitution, the copy of the order must be produced before it. In the absence of the impugned order it would not be possible to ascertain the reasons which may have impelled the authority to pass the order. It is therefore improper to quash an order which is not produced before the High Court in a proceeding under Art. 226 of the Constitution. The order of the High Court could be set aside for this reason, but we think it necessary to consider the merits also.

The High Court has further held that Sri Rajni Kant had acted in violation of principles of natural justice in passing orders in appellant's favour as no notice or opportunity of hearing was afforded to respondents Sohan Lal and Sunder Lal. There is no dispute that after cancellation of the auction sale held in appellant's favour, the property in dispute was again put to auction sale on January 17, 1969 and at that auction sale Sohan Lal and Sunder Lal respondents were the highest bidders. Their bid was provisionally accepted and in pursuance thereof they deposited one-fifth of the auction sale amount. If the Central Govt. Or any other authority exercising power under sec. 33 of the Act were to set aside the order cancelling the auction sale held in appellant's favour and if he was permitted to deposit the remaining amount of the purchase money the property would be transferred to him and in that event Sohan Lal and Sunder Lal who had also made the highest bid and made the initial deposit would suffer prejudice as they would not be entitled to the property in dispute. In these circumstances the respondents were interested in supporting the order of cancellation of the auction sale made in appellant's favour and they had sufficient interest in proceedings taken under sec. 33 of the Act. We therefore agree with the High Court that in all fairness, respondents should have been afforded opportunity of hearing to the respondents while exercising power under sec. 33 of the Act.

Learned counsel for the appellant urged that the respondents being the highest bidders at the subsequent auction sale had no right in the property and as such they were not entitled to any opportunity of hearing before the Central Govt. He placed reliance on a decision of this Court in Bombay Salt and Chemical v. Johnson & Ors., AIR 1958 SC

289. We have considered the said decision, where in this Court has taken the view that the highest bidder at an auction sale does not get any right or interest in the property till the auction sale is approved, confirmed and the sale deed is executed in his favour. The respondents even though they were the highest bidders at the subsequent auction sale do not have any right or interest in the 'property' in dispute. The question is however not whether they have any 'right or interest' in the property but whether they would be prejudicially affected. They would certainly be affected, adversely if the appellant get relief in proceedings under sec. 33 of the Act in respect of the said property. Respondents have been in possession of the property since long and further more on the basis of their highest bid made at the subsequent sale they have sufficient interest in the matter to contest the appellant's petition made under sec. 33 of the Act. We are therefore in agreement with the High Court that respondents should have been afforded opportunity of hearing before any order on the appellant's petition was passed. Since no such opportunity was afforded, the High Court was justified in quashing the orders of Sri Rajni Kant. We accordingly uphold the High Court's order to that extent.