Skip to content


Manohar Lal Vs. Financial Commissioner, Haryana and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectProperty
CourtPunjab and Haryana High Court
Decided On
Case NumberCivil Writ Petn. No. 1528 of 1978
Judge
Reported inAIR1984P& H316
ActsDisplaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act - Sections 33;
AppellantManohar Lal
RespondentFinancial Commissioner, Haryana and ors.
Excerpt:
.....and performed, then and in any such case the vendor shall be at liberty by notice in writing forthwith to determine the agreement and will have the right to resume possession of the premises and evict the purchaser. the naib tahsildar (sales) recommended to the chief settlement commissioner, (haryana) that necessary permission to get the fourth and final instalment deposited by the petitioner may be given with interest at the rate of 41/2 per cent for the period the instalment remained due......but his prayer was not allowed being time barred. the naib tahsildar (sales) recommended to the chief settlement commissioner, (haryana) that necessary permission to get the fourth and final instalment deposited by the petitioner may be given with interest at the rate of 41/2 per cent for the period the instalment remained due. the chief settlement commissioner (haryana) vide order dt. june 16, 1977, (p. 4) declined to accept the recommendation, the land was directed to be disposed of according to rules. the petitioner filed a petition under section 33 of the displaced persons (compensation and rehabilitation) act (hereafter the act) against the order p. 4 which was dismissed in limine by the financial commissioner vide order dated march 10, 1978, (p. 5). the petitioner has assailed.....
Judgment:
ORDER

1. Manohar Lal petitioner applied for the transfer of evacuee urban agricultural land bearing Khasra number 1838 (1 Bigha 10 Biswas) situate at Faridabad; District Gurgaon, as a lessee. His prayer was allowed by the Chief Settlement Commissioner in revision 'Vide order dated April 15, 1966. He was Consequently allowed the transfer of this land for Rs. 2250/-. The petitioner deposit Rs. 450/- and the balance of Rs. 1300/- was agreed to be paid in four annual instalments with first instalment falling due on August 17, 1967, and the remaining three on 17th, of each succeeding year vide agreement dated October 3, 1966, (P. 2). Paragraph 6 of the agreement P. 2 reads:--

'If the purchaser shall commit default in the payment of any instalment on the due dates or if the purchaser shall at any time fail or neglect to perform and observe any of the terms, conditions and covenants herein contained and on his part to be observed and performed, then and in any such case the vendor shall be at liberty by notice in writing forthwith to determine the agreement and will have the right to resume possession of the premises and evict the purchaser. The instalments paid shall. be forfeited:'

2. The petitioner paid the first three instalments but made default in payment of the last one of Rs. 450/- which had fallen due on August 17, 1970. In about 1976, the petitioner approached the Naib Tahsildar (Sales), Gurgaon for permission to deposit the fourth and final instalment. The plea raised by the petitioner before Naib Tahsildar (Sales), Gurgaon, was that he had approached the office of regional. Settlement. Commissioner, New Delhi. for permission to deposit the fourth instalment and he was directed to approach the Tahsildar (Sales), Gurgaon, for the purpose: Ha approached the Tahsildar (Sales) but his prayer was not allowed being time barred. The Naib Tahsildar (Sales) recommended to the Chief Settlement Commissioner, (Haryana) that necessary permission to get the fourth and final instalment deposited by the petitioner may be given with interest at the rate of 41/2 per cent for the period the instalment remained due. The Chief Settlement Commissioner (Haryana) vide order dt. June 16, 1977, (P. 4) declined to accept the recommendation, The land was directed to be disposed of according to rules. The petitioner filed a petition under Section 33 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act (hereafter the Act) against the order P. 4 which was dismissed in limine by the Financial Commissioner vide order dated March 10, 1978, (P. 5). The petitioner has assailed the orders. P. 4 and P. 5 in the present writ.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the Chief Settlement Commissioner, Haryana, had been delegated with the powers under Sec: 24 of the Act: The delegated. power under Section 24 did not authorised the Chief Settlement Commissioner (Haryana) to grant permission or to decline the same for depositing the instalments which had fallen due from the petitioner. The impugned order P. 4 passed by the Chief Settlement Commissioner (Haryana) being ultra vires is liable to be set aside. For the same reason, the order P. 5 passed by the Financial Commissioner under Section 33 of the Act cannot be sustained. The Contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner must prevail.

4. The Managing Officer on behalf of the president of India and the petitioner had entered into. agreement dt. Oct. 3, 66, (P. 2). In the event of default in 'the payment of any instalment the possession of the land could be resumed and the purchaser (petitioner) evicted therefrom in terms of paragraph 6 of the agreement reproduced above. The order in terms of para. 6 of the agreement could be passed by the Managing Officer. The Managing Officer did not pass any order. The matter was referred to the Chief settlement Commissioner, who in exercise of the powers under Section 24 of the Act, declined to grant permission to get the delayed instalment deposited by the petitioner. The Chief Settlement Commissioner had no authority to grant permission to get the delayed, payment deposited by the petitioner. For this reason, the Chief Settlement Commissioner could also not refuse to grant such permission. The impugned order of the Chief Settlement Commissioner (P. 4) declining to grant permission in getting the delayed instalment due from the petitioner deposited is ultra vires. It is liable to be set aside on this ground. The order of the Financial Commissioner (P. 5) passed under Section 33 of the Act upholding the order of the Chief Settlement Commissioner (P. 4) can. also be not sustained.

5. In the result, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned orders P. 4 and P. 5 set aside. It wilt be open for the Managing Officer to decide the matter afresh in term, of para: 6 of the agreement dated October 3. 1966, (P. 2) after hearing the petitioner and according to law. No, order as to costs.

6. Petition allowed.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //