1990 (9) TMI 347 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Eligibility for allotment of land under Rule 34C of the Displaced Persons Compensation and Rehabilitation Rules, 1955.
2. Validity of auction sale conducted in favor of the appellant.
3. Continuous possession and status of the second respondent as a sub-lessee.
4. Collusiveness of the civil court decree obtained by the second respondent.
5. Finality of the orders made by the Rehabilitation Authorities and the jurisdiction of the Civil Court.
6. Equitable relief to both parties.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Eligibility for Allotment of Land under Rule 34C:
The second respondent claimed eligibility for allotment of the disputed land under Rule 34C of the Displaced Persons Compensation and Rehabilitation Rules, 1955. The rule provides for the allotment of agricultural lands valued at Rs. 10,000 or less to displaced persons who have been in continuous occupation as sub-lessees from January 1, 1956. The second respondent's initial application for allotment was rejected in 1962, and subsequent applications were also denied until the Financial Commissioner, on remand from the High Court, declared the second respondent eligible for allotment on February 9, 1988.

2. Validity of Auction Sale Conducted in Favor of the Appellant:
The appellant purchased the land in an open auction on August 11, 1967, for Rs. 9,500, and a sale certificate was issued to him effective from September 15, 1969. The appellant argued that the auction sale removed the land from the pool of evacuee properties, and any subsequent allotment to the second respondent was invalid. The court noted that the sale certificate, once issued, conferred title to the appellant, and the auction sale was conducted in accordance with the rules prescribed under Chapter XIV of the Displaced Persons Compensation and Rehabilitation Rules, 1955.

3. Continuous Possession and Status of the Second Respondent as a Sub-lessee:
The second respondent claimed continuous possession of the land as a sub-lessee under Budha Singh from 1953-54 to 1958-59. However, his status as a sub-lessee ceased after Budha Singh's lease was canceled in 1958. The court found that the second respondent failed to prove continuous possession as required under Rule 34C. Despite this, the Financial Commissioner, on remand, presumed continuity of possession based on records from 1953 to 1961 and 1964-65, which the High Court did not interfere with.

4. Collusiveness of the Civil Court Decree Obtained by the Second Respondent:
The second respondent obtained a decree from the civil court in 1973, declaring his continuous possession of the land. The High Court later declared this decree collusive, obtained in collusion with Budha Singh. The Supreme Court agreed that the decree could not affect the auction sale order and emphasized that the civil suit against Budha Singh did not challenge any order passed under the Act.

5. Finality of the Orders Made by the Rehabilitation Authorities and the Jurisdiction of the Civil Court:
Section 27 of the Displaced Persons Compensation and Rehabilitation Act, 1954, provides that orders made by authorities under the Act are final and not subject to appeal or revision by civil courts. The Supreme Court reiterated that the jurisdiction of civil courts is barred in such matters unless the special tribunal acts ultra vires or illegally. The court found no evidence of material irregularity or fraud in the auction sale conducted in favor of the appellant.

6. Equitable Relief to Both Parties:
The court recognized the protracted litigation and hardships faced by both parties. The appellant, a bona fide purchaser, had been deprived of the land's benefits, while the second respondent, also a displaced person, had been seeking justice for 22 years. To balance the equities, the court ordered the land to be divided into two equal halves, with one half allotted to the appellant and the other half to the second respondent. This solution aimed to provide justice and equity to both parties.

Conclusion:
The appeal was allowed, and the impugned orders were set aside. The Financial Commissioner was directed to divide the land into two equal halves and deliver possession accordingly. The parties were urged to cooperate, and no order as to costs was made. The judgment emphasized the need for justice and equity in resolving the dispute.