1976 PLP 119 (SCMR)

HAMOODUR RAHMAN, C. J.‑‑The petitioner is a local. She claims to be in possession of an evacuee house No. B‑III‑38 in Campbellpur as an old tenant and a regular allottee since 1947. She filed an L.H. form on 3rd August, 1959. As she was the only applicant, Appendix and a P.T.D. were, accordingly, issued in her favour by the Deputy Settlement Commis sioner, Campbellper. But afterwards in ex parse proceedings, a successor Deputy Settlement Commissioner, on 9th March, 1960, purported to reject the said L. H. form and to put the house to auction on 16th December, 1960, without the knowledge of the petitioner. When the petitioner came to know about the auction he challenged the same by an appeal alongwith an application for the condonation of the delay but the Additional Settlement Commissioner rejected her appeal on 10th April, 1964. Her revision petition before the Settlement Commis sioner also met the same fate on 14th October, 1964. In the meantime, however, the auction. purchaser having failed to deposit the auction price, was served with notices first on 13th June, 1961 and then again on 21st March, 1964. He submitted a reply to the second notice but the Deputy Settlement Commissioner again issued a third notice on 26th December, 1966. The respondent appeared personally in answer to the said notice with an application dated 9‑1‑1967 and on his under taking to pay the balance of the auction price in 6 instalments, the Deputy Settlement Commissioner passed an order on the same date, ordering that if the balance of the price is not paid in b instalments the auction will be cancelled and the property resumed. The respondent in spite of this undertaking failed to pay the balance of the auction price and the auction was cancelled on 22nd February, 1967 and the house was, by the same order, re‑transferred to the petitioner an the basis of her previous L. H. form. The petitioner was also issued a P. T. D. on 3‑4‑1967. The appeal against this order by respondent No. 1 was rejected on 22nd June, 1967 but his revision was accepted by the Settlement Commis sioner on 17th September, 1968. The petitioner went to the High Court against this order but the High Court has dismissed her writ petition. Hence the present petition for special leave to appeal. The High Court has given two main reasons for dismissing the petition. The first is that after the petitioner's revision was rejected by the Settlement Commissioner, Campbellpur on the 14th October, 1964, she did not agitate against the order any further. That order, therefore, attained finality. The second is that the petitioner reappeared only after Settlement Scheme No. VIII had come into force, but at this stage the proceedings for the cancellation of the auction in favour of the respondent had not yet finally terminated. 'The respondent was actually claiming that he had paid up the entire auction price by means of Compensation Book No. HDR/217773 under an agreement of association. The property was re‑transferred on the 22nd February, 1967 When an appeal against the order of the Deputy Settlement Commissioner dated 26‑12‑1966 directing issuance of the third notice was actually .pending and this appeal was not decided until 22nd June, 1907. The Additional Settlement Commissioner had come to the view that the auction could still be restored if the respondent paid up the arrears in lump sum. The Additional Settlement Commissioner also considered that the present petitioner could be entitled to the transfer of the property only if she had applied for the property within 15 days of the cancellation of the auction on some regular form. No such form, however, was submitted by the petitioner. The Deputy ,Settlement Commissioner was, therefore, directed to, take up the case of the recovery of the transfer price from the respondent. It was only thereafter that the petitioner went to the High Court challenging all the orders from 9‑3‑1960 onwards which were adverse to her. The reliance by the petitioner on the fact that a P. T. D. had also since been issued in her favour was, in our opinion, not of much help to her because litigation was still pending. Therefore, it did not vest an) right in her. As rightly pointed .out by the High Court the order of the Settlement Commissioner' dated 14‑10‑1964 not having been challenged by the petitioner the only right that she could thereafter assert was a right under the now, Scheme No. VIII and as the question of the cancellation of the auction had not been finally decided at that stage she could not be considered eligible for transfer of the said house under the Scheme. The High Coin was, therefore, in every way right in rejecting her petition. We see no ground to interfere. The petition is, accordingly, dismissed. Petition dismissed.