IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.8465 of 2008 Jamuna Prasad, Son of Late Madan Mistry, resident of Mohalla-Kotwali Chowk, Police Station-Kotwali, District-Bhagalpur. -Petitioner. VERSUS 1. The Union of India through the Secretary, Department of Home Affairs, Government of India, New Delhi. 2. The Chief Settlement Commission of India, New Delhi. 3. The State of Bihar. 4. The Additional Settlement Commissioner-cum-Additional Secretary, Revenue & Land Reforms, Government of Bihar, Patna. 5. The Commissioner, Bhagalpur Division, Bhagalpur. 6. The District Magistrate, Bhagalpur. 7. The District Registrar/Sub Registrar, Bhagalpur. 8. The Additional District Magistrate, Bhagalpur. 9. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Sadar, Bhagalpur. 10. The Anchal Adhikari, Jagdishpur, Bhagalpur. 11. Prahlad Pahuja, Son of Late Arjun Singh Sindhi, R/o-Indira Nagar ‘B’ Block, Lucknow. 12. Nand Lal Pahuja, Son of Late Arjun Singh Sindhi, R/o-Ardali Bazar, Varanasi (U.P.) 13. Chandu Pahuja, S/o-Late Arjun Singh Sindhi, R/o- Castains Town, P.O. & P.S.-Deoghar (Jharkhand). 14. Sri Parsuram Mal, Son of Late Khumbmal, R/o-Chakarbhata, District- Bilaspur, Chhatisgarh. 15. Sri Laxman Das @ Sri Birbhadra Das, Son of Late Gulmal, R/o-of Tilda, District-Raipur, Chhatisgarh. 16. Sri Mohan Das, Son of Late Paru Singh, R/o-Rajnand Gaon, P.S. & District- Rajnandgaon, Chhatisgarh. 17. Sadanand Singh, Son of late Ram Lagan Singh, R/o-Mohalla-Tilka Manjhi, P.S.-Kotwali, District-Bhagalpur. -Respondents. ----------- For the Petitioner : Mr. Ram Balak Mahto, Sr. Adv. Mr. Anamul Haque. For the private-respondents : Mr. Chakrapanai. Mr. P.K. Jha. Mr. Madhuresh. For the State : Mr. Manoj Kumar Sinha, A.C. to G.P.-I. ------------- 08 11.03.2010 The present writ application has been filed for quashing the order dated 20.03.2001 passed in Case No.8A/Evacuee Case No.1 of 2000 by the Assistant Settlement Commissioner-cum- - 2 - Additional Secretary, Revenue and Land Reforms, Government of Bihar, Patna and the consequential sale certificate dated 11.08.2003 issued in that regards as well the order dated 24.11.2006 passed in Misc. Case No.01 of 2000 by the same officer amending the earlier order and the consequential amendment to the sale certificate dated 02.12.2006. The private-respondents in this writ petition are the alleged heirs of the original allottees displaced persons. The dispute is with regard to a piece of land admeasuring 1 Bigha 14 Katha and 19 Dhurs situated in Mauza Zawaripur (now near Tilka Manjhi Chowk) in the town and district of Bhagalpur. Parties have appeared and pleadings are complete. With consent of parties, the writ petition having been heard is being disposed of at this stage itself. It appears that Khubmal, Gulmal and Paru Singh were displaced persons within the meaning of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954. Having come from Pakistan at the time of partition they were to be allotted properties in India. The properties to be allotted to them were properties which had been declared evacuee properties in respect of which persons had left behind the properties while migrating to Pakistan at the time of partition. Those properties were controlled and were to be administered, settled under the provisions of the said Act and the Rules framed thereunder. It is pursuant to Evacuee Property Act, 1950 a - 3 - notification was issued declaring the aforesaid land pertaining to Municipal Plot No.23288 as evacuee property. This property was then put up for settlement to displaced persons and these three persons named above applied. Auction was held and having bid the highest, the said property was ordered to be settled to them for a consideration of Rs.3500/-. This was in 1960. As provided in those Acts, those persons, being displaced persons were entitled to get the adjustment of the said price from the funds available in the Compensation Account Fund (CAF). They made part payment of this Rs.3500/- and thereafter claimed that the balance may be adjusted from CAF. After sometime, they were informed that after adjustment of amount in the CAF, they were still required to pay a small amount. They objected, asking for details. Details were not supplied and payment was insisted upon. Thereafter, within a month of the original demand, the balance payment was also made. From the time of auction, which was held in the year 1960, the final payment was demanded and made in the year 1968. As noticed above, within one month of the final demand, the settlement stood perfected and now only the ministerial act of issuance of sale certificate was left. I may state that out of the total auction money of Rs.3500/- the balance payable was only Rs.785.49 and all this happened in the year 1968, as would appear from the fact noted in the impugned order which fact is admitted. In 1969 at the behest of a Minister the authorities were directed not to take further steps in the matter of settlement of the - 4 - said land and pursuant thereto a suo motu revision was allegedly initiated by the Authorized Chief Settlement Officer, U.P. & Bihar, in which revision the settlement, as made, was cancelled. The said order of cancellation is dated 18th November 1969 and is contained in Annexure-4 of the writ petition. The said officer is Assistant Custodian of evacuee properties. No sooner the settlement was so cancelled, the petitioner, Jamuna Prasad who claimed to be a poor Lohar approached the Settlement Commissioner at New Delhi requesting for settlement of that entire land in his favour. He was duly obliged and the Managing Officer then accepted Rs.3500/- from the writ petitioner and made the settlement in his favour and issued a sale certificate. This was in 1969. Pursuant to which petitioner got the land duly registered in his name. Till date it remains in dispute whether petitioner is in actual physical possession of the land or not. It is not relevant to decide the possession aspect of the matter in these proceedings nor is it relevant. The private-respondents claimed that pursuant to the public auction held in 1960, they have come into possession, which possession they continue till date. They had no occasion to feel threaten in any manner. Recently, they came to know of the settlement as made in favour of the writ petitioner in process of requesting government to transfer the land in their favour which was being followed up. It then transpired that in a suo motu proceeding, their settlement was cancelled and it was settled with - 5 - the writ petitioner. They then moved the government for cancellation of order, as passed in the suo motu revision proceedings, by which their settlement had been cancelled. By the impugned order, after hearing the parties, government has passed the said order whereby the Additional Chief Settlement Officer, which is now State Government officer, has held that the suo motu revision order passed unsettling the private-respondents could not be sustained. He, accordingly, set aside that order as passed in suo motu revision and held that the settlement, as made in favour of the private-respondents, was valid. He directed that the sale certificate to be issued to the private-respondents accordingly. Here, I may note that when the State Government proceeded in the matter, in the order sheet it is recorded as if it is at the instance of one Arjun Singh, which was not correct, inasmuch as Arjun Singh was the power of attorney holder of the original settlees. The said Arjun Singh had died after institution of those proceedings. The proceedings carried on and ultimately order having been passed and this mistake in name having been noticed, applications on behalf of original settlees were made for correction, which was accordingly made. While doing so, correction was also sought in respect of area, as the original certificate issued showed an area of 1.39 acres, which should actually have been only 0.89 acres. Correction was also sought for with regard to description of the boundary. These were allowed by subsequent order of the year 2006. Petitioner coming to know of - 6 - this has challenged these orders. The first thing in respect of the original impugned order of the year 2000 should be noted is that the order was passed after hearing the petitioner and the private-respondents. Mr. R.B. Mahto, learned Senior Counsel appearing in support of the writ petition submits that the State Government or for that matter the Additional Settlement Commissioner had no jurisdiction to interfere with the order dated 18.11.1969 passed on suo motu revision. That being so, the sale certificate in favour of the petitioner for the entire 0.89 acres of land could not be interfered with. On behalf of the private-respondents, it is submitted that the settlement was validly made in their favour by public auction. They were asked to pay the balance amount and in the extended period, as granted, they deposited the total amount of Rs.3500/-. The interference in the suo motu jurisdiction was totally uncalled for and was politically actuated. In fact, those proceedings were kept secret. Their presence in those proceedings was wrongly shown. They continued possession and even today are in possession. It is further stated that if one sees that it is on the 14th November, 1969 the settlement is said to be cancelled and immediately thereafter the petitioner comes to know of this cancellation and suo motu makes an application for settlement and without auction, without public notice and without tender settlement is made with him and that of such a large area of 0.89 - 7 - acres merely for Rs.3500/- shows that this entire exercise was other than bona fide. The land is measuring about Rs.0.89 acres and is in the neighbourhood of the bungalow of Superintendent of Police, residence of Divisional Commissioner in the very heart of Bhagalpur town and in 1970 is being settled with petitioner for poultry amount of Rs.3500/-. How petitioner was able to know that the settlement had been cancelled and the land was available for settlement is not explained. It is not disputed that there was no public notice nor any tender called for nor any auction taken place. A private offer was privately accepted and valuable property was settled. This part of the facts indeed has shocked the conscience of the Court. One has to look to the impugned orders in this perspective. First coming to the order passed in suo motu revision by which the private-respondents settlement was cancelled. It is indeed a cryptic order. The relevant paragraph thereof, is quoted hereunder:- “……Under the provisions of D.P. (C&R) Act/Rules the M.O. has no powers to extend the period of 15 days within which the auction purchaser is bound to deposit the sale money. It is laid down, however, that the R.S.C. can extend 15 days’ period but no such request was made and if one were made, must have been disallowed because the lapse - 8 - was of over a month which the R.S.C. could not condone. The facts disclose that the M.O. erred in accepting the balance cost of money with the result the sale is liable to be cancelled alongwith forfeiture of earnest money…..” If one reads this paragraph, it is clear that the private- respondents were not at fault at all. The private-respondents had sought time and they deposited the money. The money was accepted without demur. In my view, if condonation was due, the act of accepting the money without demur amounted to condonation. The amount was trifle that had already been deposited. The transaction was over and there was nothing illegal in the said transaction calling for interference and that too in a suo motu revision and that too under the cloud, as noticed above, of political interference. Thus, the order itself passed in suo motu revision is not an order that can be sustained by this Court at this stage. It was rightly set aside by the State Government. Mr. Mahto, learned Senior Counsel appearing in support of the writ petition submitted that it is not open to the private-respondents to challenge the validity of the said order, as passed in suo motu revision at this stage. That order being final and the order of the State Government being wrong, the order of the State Government, as impugned, should be set aside and the - 9 - order as passed by the suo motu revision should be allowed to operate. I am afraid and unable to accept the said contention. I may only note that the order passed in the suo motu revision was perverse and unsustainable. Private-respondents were told ultimately in 1968 that they had to pay a balance of about Rs.785.49 after adjustment of CFA. They were given no details yet they paid the said amount which was accepted without demur. This was not wrong at least not such a wrong for which settlement itself could be cancelled. Even if, for the sake of argument if be accepted that the order of the State Government, as impugned, was wrong then if the Court set aside the order of the State Government then in view of the Court the suo motu revisional order would automatically be revived, which order, as noted above, was wrong and unsustainable order. The effect would be by setting aside alleged wrong order, another wrong/illegal order is being given life. That is not permissible for a Court. The alternatives available to the Court are either to set aside both the orders or not to interfere with either of them. The consequence in either case would be the same. The order of suo motu revision would not survive in either of the events, for if both orders are set aside, i.e., the order in suo motu revision and the impugned order of State Government or none is set aside i.e. the order in suo motu revision and the order of State Government setting it aside, the order passed in suo motu revision - 10 - does not survive. If that be so, then the writ petitioner has no case and the writ petition is fit to be dismissed as his right is entirely based on the cancellation order as passed in suo motu revision. The said order and the settlement in petitioner’s favour were under mysterious circumstances. No bona fide. The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed. Trivedi (Navaniti Prasad Singh, J.)