IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA LPA No. 11 of 2006 Reserved on : 12.05.2010 Date of decision : 21.05.2010. Enakshi Mahajan …Appellant Versus Surinder Singh and others …Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kurian Joseph, Chief Justice. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Deepak Gupta, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Appellant: Mr. Bhupinder Gupta, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Janesh Gupta, Advocate. For the respondent No.1. Mr. G.C.Gupta, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Aashish Jamalta, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Ankush Dass Sood, Addl. Advocate No. 2 to 5: General. Per Deepak Gupta, J. 1. This Letters Patent Appeal is directed against the judgement dated 10.04.2006 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court in CWP No.296 of 2000. 2. The undisputed facts are that Shri Santokh Singh S/o Shri Partap Singh resident of B/15, Nizamuddin West, New Delhi, (predecessor-in-interest of the original writ petitioner (respondent No.1 here-in) purchased a property known as Cosy Nook Estate from the District Rent and Managing Officer on 31.10.1961 for a sum of Rs.52,000/-. This property was evacuee property and was sold under the 1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? 2 provision of Displaced Person (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954 (here-in-after referred to as the Act). 3. The appellant here-in purchased some land comprised in Khasra No.598/B, 598/2 and half share of Khasra No.598/C from the legal heirs of Shri Kishore Chand Bhandari vide two separate sale deeds, both of which were executed on 5.7.1978. Thereafter, the appellant complained to the revenue authorities that in fact an area measuring 17- 8 square yards being half share of Khasra No.598/C had wrongly been transferred in favour of the original writ petitioner. At that time, the dispute was only with regard to this area of land measuring 17-8 square yards, which the appellant claimed was not part of Cosy Nook Estate. 4. The appellant also filed a Review Petition under Section 24 of the Act before the Chief Settlement Commissioner, Himachal Pradesh, Shimla on 26.7.1993 in which her complaint was that, actually the land sold to Shri Santokh Singh predecessor-in-interest of the original writ petitioner was only 576 Sq. yards and by forgery the same had been shown to be 856 Sq. yards and 5 Sq. feet. The main allegation was that in the valuation certificate the land was described as 576 Sq. yards. According to the petitioner, the hand written portion of the sale certificate was incorporated some time in 1963 and did not exist in the year 1961. The Chief Settlement Commissioner vide his order dated 18.1.1995 came to the conclusion that there were 3 interpolations and additions made in the sale certificate and the same was illegal and set-aside the same. The Revision Petition filed by the original writ petitioner was rejected by the Financial Commissioner exercising the powers of the Central Government vide his order dated 13.3.2000. Aggrieved by these orders the petitioner filed the writ petition which has been allowed by the learned Single Judge of this Court. Hence, the present appeal. 5. At the outset, it may be noted that the original sale certificate is not on record. Only certified and true copies thereof are on record. Part of the certificate of sale is a printed document, part is hand written. Some of the blanks in the printed proforma have been typed but some entries have been made in hand. The date of public auction i.e. 11th September, 1954 has been entered in hand. The certificate is stated to be issued on 31st October, 1961. In the upper portion of the proforma the word 31st has been hand written. The property is described as 31, Kouzi Nook Estate, Simla. Thereafter, the words “including 3 Tankies, latrine, verandah + stairs in between Fountain Blue common” and the words “Khasra Nos. 602, 602/1, 602/2 (856 sq. yards and 5 sq. feet) Cozy Nook Estate, Shimla” are hand written. This certificate of sale was registered in the office of the Sub Registrar, Shimla on 23rd November, 1963. The attested true copy of the same is on record as annexure P-36. The schedule of the property given in this certified 4 copy tallies fully with the typed version when read together with the hand written version. 6. Another development that must be noted is that the predecessor-in-interest of the original writ petitioner applied for correction of the sale certificate on 21.2.1965. In this application, copy of which is on record as annexure P-26, he prayed that the correct area should be 985 sq. yards and not 856 sq. yards and 5 sq. feet. This was done by including Khasra No. 600-B in the property of Shri Santokh Singh and a corrigendum was issued whereby the area was increased to 894 sq. yards – 3 sq. feet. It is not disputed that this corrigendum was set-aside in proceedings initiated by another neighbour of the writ petitioner which culminated in judgement of this Court in RSA No.418 of 1990 dated 7th October, 1994 whereby this Court held that Santokh Singh was not owner of Khasra No. 600-B and the corrigendum issued was illegal. This judgement has attained finality. The Court however, held that vide the sale certificate only 856 sq. yards and 5 sq. feet of land had been transferred to Shri Santokh Singh. 7. Section 24 of the Act reads as follows:- “24. Power of revision of the Chief Settlement Commissioner: (1) The Chief Settlement Commissioner may at any time call for the record of any proceeding under this Act in which a Settlement Officer an Assistant Settlement Officer an Assistant Settlement Commissioner, an Additional Settlement Commissioner, a Settlement Commissioner, a 5 Managing Officer or a Managing Corporation has passed an order for the purpose of satisfying himself as to the legality or propriety of any such order and may pass such order in relation thereto as he thinks fit. (2) Without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing power under sub-section (1), if the Chief Settlement Commissioner is satisfied that any order for payment of compensation to a displaced person or any lease or allotment granted to such a person has been obtained by him by means of fraud, false representation or concealment of any material facts, then, notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, the Chief Settlement Commissioner may pass an order directing that no compensation shall be paid to such a person or reducing the amount of compensation to be paid to him, or as the case may be, canceling the lease or allotment granted to him; and if it is found that a displaced person has been paid compensation which is not payable to him, or which is in excess of the amount payable to him, such amount or excess, as the case may be, may, on a certificate issued by the Chief Settlement commissioner, be recovered in the same manner as an arrear of land revenue. (3) No order which prejudicially affects any person shall be passed under this section without giving him a reasonable opportunity of being heard. (4) Any person aggrieved by any order made under sub-section (2), may, within thirty days of the date of the order, make an application for the revision of the order in such form and manner as may be prescribed to the Central Government 6 and the Central Government may pass such order thereon as it thinks fit.” 8. No limitation is prescribed for exercise of jurisdiction by the Chief Settlement Commissioner under Section 24(1) but it is settled law that such jurisdiction must be exercised within a reasonable time depending on the facts and circumstances of the case. In the present case, the appellant had nothing to do with the property known as 31, Cosy Nook Estate, Simla. Though according to the Chief Settlement Commissioner he has exercised suo-motu jurisdiction, it is apparent that this jurisdiction has been exercised only at the behest of the appellant. The appellant moved the Chief Settlement Commissioner in 1993 more than 32 years after the sale certificate was issued. Normally, a revision is to be filed within 30 days in terms of Rules 102 and 103 of the Act. The learned Single Judge has referred the judgements passed in Smt. Balwant Kaur vs. Chief Settlement Commissioner, AIR 1964 Punjab 33, Karam Chand Thakar Dass vs. Union of India and another, AIR 1967 Punjab 85 and Karam Chand vs. Union of India and others, AIR 2002 Supreme Court 1540 , wherein the Apex Court held that a revision petition filed after five and half years of the order passed by the Chief Settlement Commissioner was miserably time barred. In the present case, nobody approached the Chief Settlement Commissioner for 32 years. Even the petitioner who purchased the property on 5.7.1978 did not file the revision 7 petition till 26.7.1993 i.e. for 15 years she had no complaint. Even her predecessors-in-interest who were the neighbours of the original writ petitioner did not challenge the sale certificate at any stage. 9. It has been urged on behalf of the appellant that since fraud is involved limitation does not come into play. It may be true that in case of fraud limitation may start from the date of discovery of fraud but in the present case we find that Revision Petition filed by the appellant before the Chief Settlement Commissioner has been termed as a suo- motu revision. There is no allegation as to when the appellant acquired knowledge of the facts relied upon by her. In fact, in the original revision petition it was claimed that by corrigendum the area of the land had been increased from 576 Sq. yards to 856 Sq. yards and 5 Sq. feet which is not factually correct. The Chief Settlement Commissioner has not given any finding that this is a case of fraud. According to him it is a case of interpolation and addition but we find that there is no evidence to support this finding. In the very first documents on record issued in the year 1961 and 1963 the land has been described and its measurement given was 856 Sq. yards and 5 Sq. feet. Thereafter, a corrigendum was issued which increased the area to 894 sq. yards – 3 sq. feet. This corrigendum was set-aside but this would only mean that the land would measure 856 Sq. yards and 5 Sq. feet. After more than 32 years the authorities could not set-aside the order on the ground that there was 8 interpolation. Even this fact has not been proved. There is no material on record to show that the land was ever shown to be 576 Sq. yards in the sale deed. The documents clearly show that the land was described to measure 856 Sq. yards and 5 Sq. feet. 10. The learned Single Judge after discussing the entire material in great detail has come to the conclusion that the impugned orders of the Chief Settlement Commissioner and the Financial Commissioner were illegal and accordingly set- aside the same. In view of what is discussed above, we find no legal, factual or jurisdictional error in the said judgement and therefore, this appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs. (Justice Kurian Joseph), Chief Justice May 21, 2010 (Justice Deepak Gupta ), (TM) Judge.