Scheme for Management and Disposal of Available Urban Properties

Evacuee laws had been repealed with effect from 01-07-1974 after promulgation of Evacuee Property and Displaced Persons Laws (Repeal) Act, 1975

Impugned order was illegal, coram non-judice and had been passed without lawful authority

Suit land had been declared as building site and could only be disposed of by the competent authority under Scheme for Management and Disposal of Available Urban Properties, 1977

Suit property could not be allotted against any pending evacuee claim

No agricultural urban land existed in the district for any allotment

Order for alternate allotment made by the Additional Deputy Commissioner (General) was coram non judice and void ab initio

Chief Settlement Commissioner had no such authority to make allotment of alternate land

Where a party claiming the protection of rights created under a law failed to pass the test of constitutionality, it could not take the plea of past and closed transaction

Illegal occupant was not entitled to have any discretionary relief of constitutional jurisdiction

Petitioners had not come to the Court with clean hands

Constitutional petition was dismissed in circumstances.

Contention of petitioner was that land in question was sold to him in compliance of summary approved by the Chief Minister and he had become owner of said land after payment of amount

Validity

Property in question was evacuee land and same could be disposed of under Scheme for the Management and Disposal of Available Urban Properties, 1977

Chief Minister had no power to alienate or transfer/allot the evacuee land which was ultimately a property of public at large

Evacuee property should be disposed of under Scheme for the Management and Disposal of Available Urban Properties, 1977

If law required a thing to be done in a particular manner then it should be done in that manner only and not otherwise

Only Member Residual Properties was competent to dispose of evacuee land under Scheme for the Management and Disposal of Available Urban Properties, 1977

Confirmation/ sanction letter issued by the Secretary Colonies Department under the approval/ order of Chief Minister was illegal, without lawful authority and same was cancelled

Constitutional petition was dismissed in circumstances.

Appeal, revision or review having not been provided in Evacuee Property and Displaced Persons Laws-(Repeal) Act, 1975, intra- Court appeal was maintainable.

Property in question had been found to be "available property" for disposal as an evacuee property and was even left to the Municipal Committee to acquire the same for public purpose if it was so desired

Such order was challenged and interference with the same was declined by relevant forums

Non-interference by said forums having not been challenged by the party, order of said forums attained finality

High Court, in circumstances, rightly found that matter had become a past and closed transaction and property being "available property" its transfer could not be questioned as illegal.

Evidence on record had proved that original allottee of plot in dispute, who was in its possession and had constructed six big rooms over it, had filed Application Form under Settlement Scheme No. VI

Allottee, after getting adjusted transfer price of plot from compensation book, purchased by him from a claimant, surrendered his entire rights in plot in dispute in favour of petitioner through agreement and petitioner, on basis of such agreement, applied for issuance of transfer order in his favour

Authority, after recording statement of allottee and petitioner and after preparation of account, issued transfer order in respect of plot in dispute in favour of petitioner

Transfer order issued in favour of petitioner was acted upon in shape of attestation of mutation which was duly implemented and incorporated in Revenue Record

Overwhelming evidence was available on record that plot in dispute which stood transferred in name of petitioner for all intents and purposes, had gone out of compensation pool and was no more available for auction under Scheme for Management and Disposal of Available Urban Residential Properties

Plot in dispute being no more available for auction, and Authority after transfer of same in favour of petitioner having become "functus officio", petitioner could not be deprived of same and plot could not be taken as available property

Order of Authority whereby plot in dispute was declared to be available for disposal under Scheme for Management and Disposal of Available Urban Residential Property, was declared to be illegal in circumstances.

Status of land in question being disputed fact could not be raised for the first time before Supreme Court in proceedings under Art. 185(3) of the Constitution

Unallotted agricultural land vested in Provincial Government against price paid for the same, therefore, disposal thereof, had to take place according to Scheme for Management and Disposal of Available Urban Properties, 1977

Judgment of High Court wherein disputed question was decided was set aside by Supreme Court, in circumstances.

Allotment to informants concerning land which had been declared as a "building site" could not be made after issuance of notification dated 16-5-1973

On the issuance of notification dated 16-5-1973 by Chief Settlement Commissioner, Punjab every agricultural urban land which had not been adjusted or allotted or utilized till then against verified claims ceased to be available for transfer

Mere fact that some matter regarding adjustment of specified land was under consideration or had not been carried out, would not bring the grievance within the provision of S.2(2) of the Evacuee Property and Displaced Persons Laws (Repeal) Act, 1975

Notified Officer, thus, had no jurisdiction to allot, or transfer the land or grant alternate land against unadjusted verified units

Notified Officer being not competent to recall or bypass his previous decision, order of allotment of alternate land passed as such was vitiated on that score

Claimants with unsatisfied entitlement could, however, resort to any other remedy if available under the law but were not entitled to obtain allotment of urban land in satisfaction of pending units as alternate land/measure or otherwise

Conduct of the Notified Officer who had allegedly assumed power which was not vested in him, did not appear to be above board and was prima facie mala fide which called for probe and suitable departmental action against persons responsible for concealment of facts and wanton abuse of power by the Chief Settlement Commissioner

Order passed by Notified Officer suffered from total lack of jurisdiction and were coram non judice

High Court ought to have interfered with the illegal order passed by Chief Settlement Commissioner in purported exercise of his powers as Notified Officer.

Allotment of bungalow and outhouses in question, in favour of respondent was confirmed by all the forums and thus same attained finality as far back as in 1960

Administrator Residual Urban Properties after repeal of Evacuee Laws re-opening matter and allotting outhouses to appellants

Such order was set aside by High Court in exercise of its Constitutional jurisdiction

Validity

Question relating to allotment of outhouses had been expressly dealt with in all the forums and found that entire bungalow including outhouses stood transferred in favour of respondents, per order of competent forum in 1960 and High Court maintained such transfer in earlier round of litigation

Property in question was thus, no more available property within the meaning of para. 6 of the Scheme for Management and Disposal of Urban Properties, 1977

Administrator, Residual Property in the colourful exercise of power had frustrated orders of superior Courts

High Court, under its Constitutional jurisdiction had rightly set aside such order

No interference by Supreme Court was warranted with the impugned order of High Court.

Provision of para.11 of the Scheme for the Management and Disposal of Available Urban Properties, 1977, postulated that available properties had to be disposed of by unrestricted public auction

Letter of Board of Revenue dated 2-2-1986 allowing sale of land in favour of respondents on average market price was thus, not in accordance with law and could not be acted upon

High Court in giving effect to such letter had overlooked the vital aspect of the matter that land in question, could only be disposed of by unrestricted public auction, an omission which had vitiated its order

Order of High Court directing auction to be taken in terms of letter of Board of Revenue dated 2-2-1986 being not in accordance with law was set aside

Land in question was ordered to be disposed of through unrestricted public auction.

Department failed to show that decision to offer plot at revised reserved price fixed by Member, Board of Revenue, was ever extended to petitioner or he had been served with proper notice

Petitioner was prepared to pay revised reserved price

Department was directed to sell plot to petitioner in circumstances.

Petitioners' possession not existing at all and transfer order passed in their favour not only illegal but result of collusion

Government could object to such a transfer and Administrator, Residual Property, could step in and recall such transfer order which was obtained by fraud

Document of transfer issued in violation of law regulating transfer of available property also could not be allowed to stand

Transfer in favour of petitioner, held, had been clearly manipulated, petition, against recall of transfer order dismissed in circumstances.

Para. 3-Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act (XXVIII of 1958), S. 10-Application for condoning delay and entertainment of such application-Administrator' Residual Property, held, competent. to enter into merits of case while considering request to condone delay and to entertain application on ground that property already stood disposed of and whether in such circumstances delay could be condoned-Jurisdiction of Administration inherent-Application for condonation of delay and entertaining application for transfer of property cannot turn round and be heard against his own conduct.

Para. 7 (2)-Transfer of property-Condition precedent-Filing of application, held, a condition precedent for vesting jurisdiction in Deputy Administrator for transfer of property-Petitioner's contention of making statement desiring to seek transfer of disputed property during pendency of a miscellaneous application, held; not sustainable.

[As reconstituted] and Scheme for Management and Disposal of Available Urban Properties, 1977-"Available property "Transfer of property in favour of a person decided long ago and such decision never challenged-Nor property resumed by Settlement Department thereafter-Petitioner also not making any application for transfer of such property-None of Schemes, held, applicable to case.