Smt Roop Kaur through her attorney Shri M.S. Grewal the auction purchaser of unit No. B.XIII-18-S-14 (Portion I and III) Hide Market Amritsar has failed to deposit the balance sale price amounting to Rs. 28,000/- inspite of issue of registered notice for 2.1.61. Her bid is, therefore, cancelled and earnest money forfeited. Settlement Officer Jullundur may be requested to deduct Rs. 3200/- as earnest money out of CA.No.P/J/10110. The applicant may be informed accordingly and property disposed of in the next sale programme.Announced. Sd/- Distt Rem & Managing Officer Date 8.3.61 AMRITSAR.
7. This order does not state that parties were duly heard. It is disputed whether the notice mentioned in it, alleged to have been sent to Smt. Rup Kaur on 18.12.1960 asking her to appear on 2.1.1961, was received by the contesting respondent. Even if the learned Single Judge's finding that it was not received at all by her were not correct, the time fixed for her appearance was too short. Furthermore, the allegation that she had been called upon, presumably by the letter dated 11.9.1959 to deposit Rs. 28,000/- was, on the face of it, untrue. Despite a report in her favour by the Regional Settlement Commissioner, who investigated the facts and reported to the Chief Settlement Commissioner, that she had not been properly served justice was denied to her by the Chief Settlement Commission on 26.6.1963.
8. The learned Single Judge had examined the facts and pointed out other obvious illegalities at earlier stages showing that provisions of Rules 90 and 92 and 105 of the Displaced Persons Compensation Rehabilitation Rules 1955 were not complied with in cancelling the sale. According to Rup Kaur, who filed some application on 9th May, 1961, when the learnt what had happened, she had also filed an appeal against the order of 8th March, 1961, and made a request for extension of time for payment of the balance of the purchase money, but, on 14th June, 1961, the following order was passed by the Assistant Settlement Commissioner on her appeal:
This is an appeal against the order of Distt. Rent & Managing Officer Amritsar dated 8.3.61 where by he cancelled the appellant's bid and forfeited the earnest money on account of his failure to deposit the balance price of property No. B-XIII 18-S-14 (Portion I & III) Hide Market Amritsar purchased by him at the open auction within the specified time. For all intends and purposes this appeal is for extension of time to deposit the balance purchase price.
Extension of time is an administrative matter for which no judicial action is called for dismissed. Inform the appellant accordingly.
9. The learned Single Judge pointed out that the above mentioned order of the Appellate authority was also void for contravening the provisions of Rule 105 as interpreted by a Full Bench of to High Court of Punjab in Hira Lal Kher v. The Chief Settlement Commissioner New Delhi 1961 PLR 560 so that it was the duty of the settlement Commissioner, to fix a date for hearing and to inform the appellant of it was not discharged. Apparently, the appeal was decided without informing the contesting respondent Smt. Rup Kaur when her appeal would be heard. Rule 105, which was thus contravened, provides:
105. Provisions of Order XLI of the CPC apply to appeals and revisions.... Except as otherwise expressly provided in the Act or in these rules, the procedure laid down in order XLI of the CPC 1908 (Act V of 1908) shall so far as may be applicable, apply to the hearing and disposal of appeals and revisions and the Act.
10. Furthermore, extension of time was not just an 'administrative matter'. The question whether Rup Kaur had made out a case for it or not should have been quasi-judicially considered and decided. Indeed, if provisions of the Civil Procedure Code were applied to these appeals and extension of time was only a relief sought, the discretion to grant it or refuse it had to be judicially and judiciously exercised. The order was made on an apparently wrongly assumption.
11. The learned Single Judge had restored the position to what it was when the letter dated 11th September, 1959, was received by M.S. Grewal, the son and general attorney of Rup Kaur, and had directed the Managing Officer to proceed in accordance with law. After having heard learned Counsel for both sides at some length, we are not satisfied that any injustice has been done to the appellant who will, no doubt, get back whatever money he may have deposited. We think, that, in the circumstances of the case, it could not be said that the learned Single Judge's conclusion, that provisions of Rule 90 had not been complied with in dealing with the case of Rup Kaur, who had suffered injustice, was erroneous. The learned Judge had stated his conclusion as follows.
A mere reading of the above quoted provision shows that one of the conditions precedent entitling the Rehabilitation Authorities to cancel the sale and to forfeit the initial deposit is the service on the auction purchaser of a notice specified in Sub-rule (11), Sub-rule (12) or Sub-rule (13) of Rule 90. The petitioner admittedly complied with the requirement of the notice under Sub-rule (12) of Rule 90 (Annexure 'F') and no notice interms of the requirements of Sub-rule (13) of Rule 90 was ever admittedly issued to or served on the petitioner. In these circumstances, the Rehabilitation Authorities had no jurisdiction whatsoever for cancelling the sale in favour of the petitioner on account of alleged non-payment of the balance of the purchase price and for foifeiting the initial deposit made by her. In this view of the matter, the impugned orders cancelling the sale in favour of the petitioner and forfeiting her initial deposit are wholly without jurisdiction and cannot possibly be sustained. Errors of law in the orders of the Chief Settlement Commissioner and the other Rehabilitation Authorities are apparent on their face in as much as the said orders have been passed in absolute ignorance of the statutory provisions referred to above.
12. We, therefore, see no reason to interfere with the view taken by the High Court. Consequently, we dismiss this appeal. But, in the circumstances of the case, the parties will bear their own costs.