Shanti Devi Vs. State of Haryana and Others - Court Judgment

CWP No.1779 of 1992 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No.1779 of 1992 (O&M) Date of decision: May 22, 2014 Shanti Devi ...Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others ...Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN1 Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?.

2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ?.

3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?. Present: Mr. SS Saini, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Rahul Sharma, Additional Advocate General, Haryana, for respondents No.1 and 2. Mr. Rakesh Nagpal, Advocate, for respondent No.3. K. KANNAN, J.

(Oral) 1. The petitioner challenges the order issued by the Joint Secretary-cum-Settlement Commissioner on 20.11.1991 directing the sale of the property, while setting aside the sale purported to have been made in favour of the petitioner by the Tehsildar. Independently of this order, there had been yet another order of the Chief Settlement Commissioner, Haryana, issued on 7.1.1991 giving similar direction for sale of this property in an open auction, after getting the reserved price re-assessed from the competent authority. Simultaneously, two orders have been passed by the two authorities coming to a same result under the following circumstances. Singh Prem 2014.05.27 12:51 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CWP No.1779 of 1992 2 2. In an auction held on 19.2.1987 under the Sales of Surplus Rural Evacuee Properties Rules, the land in dispute was sold in favour of one Kehar Singh. The present petitioner Shanti Devi and another person Lalla Ram raised objection to the sale, one claiming that the property had been sold for a grossly low price and he was prepared to pay a larger price and the other person contending that she had been already in possession of the property and the property could not have been directed to be sold without considering her rights under some of the press notes released by the government allowing for a priority to a person in possession. Their objections were disallowed and the sale certificate had been issued in favour of Kehar Singh. This was challenged again before the Chief Settlement Commissioner by Lalla Ram only and Shanti Devi did not make any further objection. It is a matter of record that Shanti Devi herself had filed a suit against the State against the sale by auction. Her suit was dismissed and the appeal filed by her before the District court was also dismissed. In the proceedings before the Chief Settlement Commissioner, the sale made in favour of Kehar Singh was set aside and there had been a direction that the property shall be re-auctioned. He found, inter-alia, that the property was not rural property and the sale by the Tehsildar itself was incompetent. There had been other deficiencies noted by him in the order. This order had been subject of challenge before this court in CWP No.5897 of 1988. Before the High Court, there had been again a similar dispute of whether the property was urban or semi-urban land which could have been sold by the Tehsildar or it was only a rural property. To resolve the matter, the High Singh Prem 2014.05.27 12:51 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CWP No.1779 of 1992 3 Court set aside the order of the Chief Settlement Commissioner and directed fresh consideration taking into account certificate relating to the nature of the property of whether it was urban or rural property and to resolve the dispute. Significantly, at the time when the High Court passed the order, the present petitioner was not made party because she had not challenged the order originally passed dismissing her objection and the Chief Settlement Commissioner was only deciding the appeal filed by Lalla Ram.

3. The petitioner filed an application to implead herself as a party before the Chief Settlement Commissioner. Her petition was dismissed. She appears to have moved an independent application before the Tehsildar staking her claim again on the basis of a press note issued on 11.7.1988 by the Haryana Rehabilitation Department. It was purported to be liberalization of policy relating to disposal of rural/sub-urban evacuee land. The Tehsildar favourably considered her claim. The petitioner came by benefit of sale in her favour from the Tehsildar. This was objected to by Lalla Ram before the Joint Secretary-cum-Settlement Commissioner and he passed an order on 20.11.1991 which is subject of challenge before this court. He also passed an order stating that the Tehsildar had colluded with the petitioner and he could not have allowed the benefit of the press note which was not applicable.

4. We have, therefore, two orders, one, passed by the Joint Secretary-cum-Settlement Commissioner and the another passed by the Chief Settlement Commissioner. The order passed by the Chief Settlement Commissioner is similar in one aspect that is squarely a point raised and for Singh Prem 2014.05.27 12:51 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CWP No.1779 of 1992 4 which remand had been made by the High Court. The remand was to identify the location of the property and whether the Tehisldar could have exercised its power to sell considering the property as rural property. I have already made reference to the fact that there were conflicting claims about the character of the property, even before the High Court in the earlier round. The Chief Settlement Commissioner was confronted with the same dilemma of varying versions regarding character of the property. The Chief Settlement Commissioner, therefore, made reference to the fact that the land in question was about 350 yards away from the Ware Housing Godowns and these godowns were situated in the new grain market of Thanesar. He also observed that the land at present is being put to agricultural use and otherwise chahi and fertile but it also has commercial potentiality. Though the land was not directly located on the road, it had nonetheless developed and had commercial potential. He identified other distinctive features such as proximity to the Kurukshetra University, location of other land and buildings for commercial use and his own personal assessment of the high value of the property. Noticing that it could not, therefore, satisfy the test of merely disposal as a rural or sub-urban land, he directed a fresh auction to take place. Taking the issue from the point of objection taken by the petitioner through press note or considering the problem through the order of remand made by the High Court already, when the original purchaser Kehar Singh had challenged the order of cancellation, the government has thought it fit to realize the potential of the land and for optimal benefit by sale by public auction. It serves interest of public best for I cannot see any Singh Prem 2014.05.27 12:51 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CWP No.1779 of 1992 5 special privilege for the petitioner to stall such action. If she was staking her claim under the press note, that had been specifically adverted to in the order passed by the Joint Secretary-cum-Settlement Commissioner. The same issue has also been considered by the Chief Settlement Commissioner, while deciding of what was directed to be done by this court in the earlier writ petition.

5. At some point of time, the petitioner has allowed the order dismissing the action to set aside the sale become final when she did not think it necessary to take up the matter before the Chief Settlement Commissioner, after her initial objection was dismissed on 29.9.1997. Her own attempt to implead herself as a party was turned down. It was only the order of the sale from the Tehsildar relying on press note that gave her a shot in the arm to take up challenge against the order passed by the Settlement Commissioner through this writ petition. Both the orders of the Settlement Commissioner and the Chief Settlement Commissioner have taken note of what was relevant and through the writ petition she has secured herself the benefit staying in possession without allowing the properly to be sold.

6. The counsel points out to me that in the matter of sale under the press note, sub-urban land other than those which have potential sites for commercial land near developing town would be transferred on the current market value. The contention is that the property has been transferred on current market value. That is precisely the point of challenge wherein I have held that the Tehsildar allowed for sale without going through normal Singh Prem 2014.05.27 12:51 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CWP No.1779 of 1992 6 process of auction in public and if her contention were to be that the property which she purchased itself represent the market value, the auction ordered by the Chief Settlement Commissioner would itself reveal whether it could fetches the higher price or not. The property which has been sold for `1.5 lakhs and odd was specifically found by the Chief Settlement Commissioner to be grossly low and in his own assessment the property would be more than `8 lakhs and he has directed through the order that reserve price be re-assessed from the competent authority before the auction. The reliance on the press note, therefore, is not justified.

7. The counsel also relies on a Division Bench ruling rendered in Bishan Singh and others Versus Chief Settlement Commissioner and others 1973 PLJ183 where the persons were covered by the press note have enforceable legal right and it will not be open for the State government to discriminate between one particular category and the another. I have already held that the application of the press note itself was suspect for it was applicable only in respect of the rural or sub-urban land and the inspection directed by this court in the writ petition for consideration of rival certificates and the personal inspection taken by the Chief Settlement Commissioner themselves reveal that though it was an agricultural land it has immense potential for commercial exploitation and for that reason, it was directed that a fresh auction should take place. I, therefore, do not find any scope for application of what was set out through the decision in Bishan's case, referred to above. The counsel also refers me to the decision in Kala Singh and others Versus State of Haryana and others CWP No.Singh Prem 2014.05.27 12:51 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CWP No.1779 of 1992 7 9961-A of 1990 decided on 16.5.2011, where I have held that the price has to be assessed at the time when the application was made. I have dealt with it in a case of persons under the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954, where I found that the persons who staked their claim were the persons who were entitled and, therefore, the price was directed to be determined on the date when the application was filed. In this case, we have example of a person who knocks away the property at a rate which is far below the market value and stalled all the proceedings for sale for her own aggrandizement. I have found that there are no bonafides in her petition and the same is a misuse of court powers and, therefore, there is no scope for allowing a sale to be confirmed at the rate which the petitioner finds to her own benefit as appropriate when it has taken place in the 1991. Reliance on this judgment is also not appropriate.

8. The writ petition is dismissed with costs which are assessed at `25,000/-, payable to the State. The State is also competent to secure mesne profits for all this period in accordance with law. May 22, 2014 (K.KANNAN) prem JUDGE Singh Prem 2014.05.27 12:51 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh