CWP No. 4305 of 1987 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No. 4305 of 1987 Date of Decision: 25th March, 2011 Munshi Ram ...Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others ..Respondents. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RANJAN GOGOI, CHIEF JUSTICE 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. Whether to be referred to the Reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present : Mr. H.N.Mehtani, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Kulvir Narwal, Addl. Advocate General, Haryana for the respondents. **** RANJAN GOGOI, C.J. This writ petition seeks to challenge an order dated 06.03.1987 passed by the Chief Settlement Commissioner, Haryana (respondent No.2). By the aforesaid order the respondent No.2 has set-aside the auction of the land involved in the writ petition in favour of the petitioner as well as the subsequent sale-deed executed. The brief facts that will require to be noticed for the purpose of the present adjudication may be stated hereinafter. According to the writ petitioner, land covered by Khasra Nos. 702, 703, 704, 705 and 706 situated in Moza Bahadurgarh, District Rohtak was rural evacuee cultivable agriculture land that had vested in the custodian under the Administration of Evacuee Property Act, 1950. The petitioner contends that as a result of the negotiations CWP No. 4305 of 1987 [2] between the Central Government and the Punjab Government, the Central Government decided to transfer and the Punjab Government had agreed to purchase the entire surplus evacuee land on certain terms and conditions. As a result of this agreement, according to the petitioner, the entire unallotted surplus evacuee agricultural land stood transferred to the State Government under a package deal w.e.f. 01.04.1961. Therefore, with effect from the said date i.e. 01.04.1961 all such land including land covered by Khasra Nos. 702 to 706 measuring 3 Bighas 17 Biswas stood transferred to the State Government and the Central Government ceased to have any right over such land w.e.f. 01.04.1961. Thereafter, according to the petitioner, the aforesaid 3 Bighas 17 Biswas of land covered by Khasra Nos. 702 to 706 was put to auction and the petitioner had offered the highest amount of ` 4000/- for the land. After finalization of the auction, the earnest money as well as the balance payment had been made by the petitioner and duly accepted by the respondent No.1. In this manner, according to the petitioner, he had become the absolute owner of the land. During the pendency of the writ petition, the original writ petitioner, Munshi Ram died and his heirs have been substituted. The petitioner has further stated that in the year 1967 the respondent No.3 i.e. Municipal Committee, Bahadurgarh had filed an application for cancellation of the sale of the land made to the petitioner. However, no orders were passed in this regard. It is also stated by the petitioner that one Ram Lal had challenged the auction of the land covered by Khasra No. 706 in favour of the petitioner and CWP No. 4305 of 1987 [3] the Chief Settlement Commissioner, Haryana by order dated 09.04.1968 had set-aside the auction in respect of Khasra No. 706. After the said order was passed, the sale-deed of land bearing Khasra Nos. 702 to 705 measuring 1 Bighas 9 Biswas was issued in his favour by the competent authority. Much thereafter on 25.05.1983, the respondent No.3 moved an application before the respondent No.2 i.e. Chief Settlement Commissioner, Haryana contending that the land covered by Khasra Nos. 702 to 705 along with other lands has been transferred to the Municipal Committee on 02.11.1961 by the Central Government on the basis of the negotiations for a total value of ` 16,050/-. The respondent No.3, in the application filed, had stated that the said amount has been paid. Consequently, the sale made in favour of the writ-petitioner was stated to be illegal and a prayer was made for setting-aside the same. The respondent No.2 by order dated 06.03.1987 having accepted the plea raised on behalf of the Municipal Committee and having set-aside the auction and the sale of the land covered by Khasra Nos. 702 to 705 this writ petition has been filed calling into question the said order dated 06.03.1987 passed by the respondent No.2. A written statement has been filed on behalf of the official respondents contending, inter-alia, that the writ petition involves the disputed questions of fact and therefore the present is not a fit case for adjudication by the writ Court. In paras No. 2 and 3 of the written statement it has been stated that only the rural properties were received by the State Government from the Central Government CWP No. 4305 of 1987 [4] under the package deal of 1961 and the land in question being urban land the same was not transferred to the State Government in the package deal in question. It is also contended that as the land was not covered by the package deal of 1961 the respondent No.2 was fully authorised under Section 24 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation & Rehabilitation) Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') to entertain the revision petition and there being no period of limitation prescribed by Section 24 of the Act, the impugned order dated 06.03.1987 is perfectly justified, legal and valid warranting no interference by the Court. In the written statement filed, it has also been specifically stated by the official respondents that the land was transferred by the Central Government to the Municipal Committee way back in the year 1961 for valuable consideration and the title of the property having vested in the Municipal Committee its subsequent sale by way of auction in favour of the petitioner on 16.07.1967 was wrong, illegal and unauthorized. Though number of contentions have been advanced on behalf of the rival parties, it will not be necessary for the Court to go into any of the said issues in view of the jurisdictional issue that has arisen in the present case with regard to the power and competence of the respondent No.2 to entertain the revision application filed on 25.05.1983. In this regard, it is firstly contended that the land having been transferred in favour of the writ petitioner on the basis of the auction held in the year 1967 the revision application filed by the respondent No.3 in the year 1983 is hopelessly barred by limitation and there is no explanation for the inordinate delay. The second plank CWP No. 4305 of 1987 [5] of the attack with regard to the jurisdiction of the respondent No.2 is that the land having vested in the State Government way back in the year 1961 under the package deal the respondent No.2 was clearly not authorised to entertain the revision petition under Section 24 of the Act. The respondents have submitted that under Section 24 of the Act the Chief Settlement Commissioner has been vested with the power to call for the record of any proceedings at any time to satisfy himself as to the legality or propriety of any decision/order rendered by an officer subordinate. According to the learned counsel for the respondents, though sub Section (2) of Section 24 of the Act confers power of the Chief Settlement Commissioner to go into the question of any lease or allotment if the same had been obtained by means of fraud or false representation or concealment of the material facts. Sub Section (2) makes it clear that the aforesaid power is without prejudice to the generality of the power conferred under Sub Section (1). In this regard, reliance has also been placed on the judgment of the Supreme Court in case Om Parkash and others V. Union of India and others reported in AIR 1971 (SC) 771 wherein it is laid down that the specific power conferred under Sub Section (2) of Section 24 of the Act is only illustrative and will not restrict the exercise of the general powers conferred by Section 24(1) of the Act of 1954. The respondents also contended that no limitation has been prescribed for the exercise of the powers under Section 24 of the Act by the Chief Settlement Commissioner. In so far as the package deal is concerned, the respondents, while admitting that the said package CWP No. 4305 of 1987 [6] deal covered all the agricultural and cultivable lands, have contended that the land involved in the present writ petition is urban land and not rural land and therefore, the same did not stand transferred to the State of Punjab under the package deal of 1961, as contended by the petitioner. Having considered the provisions of Section 24(1) and (2) of the Act in the light of the judgment of the Apex Court in Om Parkash's case (supra), the Court is of the view that neither the plea of limitation nor the absence of any fraud or concealment, as urged on behalf of the petitioner, would denude the Chief Settlement Commissioner of the revisional powers vested by Section 24 of the Act of 1954 so long the land can be understood to be the urban land and not rural, agricultural or cultivable land. It is to the aforesaid aspect of the case i.e. whether the land is urban or rural that the Court will now have to turn to. Whether the land in question is urban or rural is basically a question of fact. No material has been laid before the Court to enable the Court to record a firm conclusion on the aforesaid score. Neither any meaningful discussion is available in the revisional order dated 06.03.1987 where the issue has been answered merely by recording the conclusion “that the argument of the learned counsel for the respondent that the present petition is not maintainable before the Chief Settlement Commissioner as the property was situated in rural area, had no value. The land was situated in urban area and the Chief Settlement Commissioner is competent to deal with the case under Section 24 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation & CWP No. 4305 of 1987 [7] Rehabilitation) Act, 1954.” What are the facts on which the said conclusion has been recorded by the ultimate fact finding authority are not disclosed. What has been recorded in the revisional order dated 06.03.1987 are the conclusions without indicating the basis thereof. Time and again the judicial verdict has emphasized that reasons are the live link between the basic facts and the conclusions reached. Reading the revisional order the Court does not find any consideration of the basic facts on which the conclusions have been reached nor the Court finds any reason in support of the said conclusions. The Court is, therefore, of the view that it will be wholly inappropriate to proceed to determine the said question of fact particularly when the basic materials are not before it. The Court, therefore, has no option but to remand the matter to the Chief Settlement Commissioner for a de novo adjudication on the said question after affording the rival parties an opportunity of hearing and laying before the said authority requisite material in support of their respective pleas. Consequently, while directing the status-quo of the property to be maintained until final orders in this regard are passed by the Chief Settlement Commissioner, we remit the matter to the said authority for further action in accordance with law. Writ petition shall stands disposed of in the above terms. (RANJAN GOGOI) CHIEF JUSTICE 25th March, 2011 'ravinder'