Kumar Vs. State of Haryana & Ors  Insc 235 (6 April 2004)
Lahoti & Ashok Bhan. Bhan, J.
dispute in this appeal pertains to the claim to House No. 3 situate in Block
No. 13, Mohalla Kasabad, Hisar, Haryana which is an evacuee property under the
Displaced Persons (Compensation & Rehabilitation) Act, 1954 (for short 'the
Act'). Father of the appellant Radha Kishan was a displaced person. He had a
verified claim of the value computed as Rs. 6,000/-. He occupied 400 Sq. Yards
out of the 700 Sq. Yards of the property in dispute. Office of the Regional
Settlement Commissioner vide communication dated 3.5.1957 noted that the
assessed claim of the Radha Kishan was Rs. 6,000/-. The house was valued at Rs.
5,844/-. Radha Kishan was required to deposit a sum of Rs. 2,973/- against his
deposited it with the Treasury Officer, Hisar being the total amount payable
against the said claim for which he was issued a receipt dated 12.6.1957
acknowledging the payment of Rs. 2,973/- (Ex. P1).
Officer vide communication dated 13.6.1957 certified that Radha Kishan had
deposited the full amount payable towards the claim. On 3.3.1969 Radha Kishan
filed an application with the Treasury officer, Haryana for issuance of a
certificate of having deposited the outstanding amount towards his claim.
Treasury Officer vide certificate dated 5.3.1969 verified that the total amount
payable towards the claim in the amount of Rs. 2,973/- had been deposited.
house property in question was allotted to different displaced persons to
satisfy their claims. A part of it measuring (400 Sq. Yards) was allotted to Radha
Kishan and the other part measuring (300 Sq. Yards) was allotted to Hari Chand,
now represented by his son Om Prakash, respondent No.3.
Chief Settlement Commissioner assessed the value of the property at over Rs.
15,000/-. Since the value was assessed over Rs. 15,000/- the then Settlement
Commissioner held that it was not an allotable property and accordingly
rejected the claim of the appellant as well as Respondent No. 3.
restriction that the property valued at more than Rs. 15,000/- was not allotable
was removed and thereafter the appellant as well as Respondent No. 3 filed
applications for allotment of the property in dispute. This claim was rejected
by the Settlement Officer as well as the Deputy Chief Settlement Commissioner
exercising the powers of the Chief Settlement Commissioner in view of the
earlier order passed by the Chief Settlement Commissioner. The order of the Deputy
Chief Settlement Commissioner dated 24.3.1977 has been attached as Annexure
filed Revision Petition No. 33(67) 77 and Respondent No. 3 filed Revision
Petition No. 33 (16) 87 before the Central Government under Section 33 of the
Act. The powers of the Central Government have been delegated to the Financial
Commissioner, Haryana at Chandigarh. Before the Financial Commissioner
appellant as well as Respondent No. 3 entered into a settlement which was taken
on record. It may be noted that State of Haryana as well asTehsildar, Sales, Hisar (managing officer) were made parties
and the compromise was affected in their presence. As per this settlement
northern side of the house in dispute came to the share of Om Prakash
(Respondent No. 3) and southern portion came in favour of the appellant.
Financial Commissioner accepted the settlement and passed orders accordingly.
Parties took possession of their respective shares. In the compromise arrived
at between the parties the Revision Petition No. 33 (67) 77 filed by the
appellant was disposed of in terms of the compromise dated 24.1.1987 on
19.5.1987 and the Revision Petition No. 33 (16) 87 filed by the Respondent No.
3 was dismissed as not pressed on 24.11.1987. This order of the Financial
Commissioner became final.
14.9.1987 Tehsildar, Sales, Hisar, Haryana auctioned the property in dispute.
The auction purchaser was one Dharamvir son of Arjan Dev Arya. Ultimately, Dharam
Vir withdrew the earnest money deposited by him and auction stood nullified.
claim of the appellant had been rejected by the Settlement Commissioner in the
year 1970. Because of the change in circumstances inasmuch as the property
above Rs. 15,000/- also became allotable the appellant as well as Respondent
no. 3 filed applications for allotment of the property in question. These
applications were rejected by the Deputy Chief Settlement Commissioner
exercising the power of the Chief Settlement Commissioner vide order dated
24.3.1977 on the ground that their claim applications could not be considered
as they stood rejected earlier upto the Chief Settlement Commissioner. Order
passed by the Deputy Settlement Commissioner date 24.3.1977 stood superseded by
the later order of the Financial Commissioner passed in exercise of its power
under Section 33 of the Act.
thereafter filed the present suit for declaration that the appellant was the
owner in possession of the property in dispute to the extent it was allotted to
him. Suit was dismissed on the ground that there was no proof of the deposit of
the amount due towards the claim. This order of the trial court was upheld in
appeal as well as in the second appeal by the High Court. There is no dispute
that the appellant had verified claim of Rs. 6,000/-. Value of the house in question
had been assessed at Rs. 5,844/-.
appellant had produced the receipt showing the deposit of Rs. 2,973/- which has
not been disputed. In view of this fact, the findings recorded by the trial
court, cannot be sustained and accordingly the same are set aside.
from appellant and the respondent No. 3 no other person has claimed this
the course of argument counsel for the appellant who is appearing for
Respondent No. 3 as well stated that he is prepared to pay any additional amount
to put an end to the controversy between the parties. He offered to make a
payment of Rs. 1 lakh on behalf of the appellant and a suitable amount as may
be determined by the Court on behalf of the Respondent No. 3. We directed the
counsel appearing for the State of Haryana to get the property demarcated as
per possession of the appellant and Respondent No. 3 and he was also asked to
assess the market price of the property as it exists today. In pursuance to the
said directions Balwant Singh, Naib Tehsildar (Sales) Hissar has filed an
affidavit along with a site plan (Annexure A). As per this affidavit the
property claimed by the appellant is bounded by the points ABCD and it measures
400 Sq. Yards and is valued at Rs. 4,92,600/- including the structure standing
thereon. Property claimed by Om Prakash (Respondent No.3) is bounded by the
points BCEF and it measures 320 Sq. Yards. The value of the same has been
assessed at Rs. 3,22,900/- including the structure standing thereon. It has
also been stated that some other persons are in possession of the property.
for the appellant, who appears for respondent No.3 as well, has filed an
affidavit stating therein that the persons other than the appellant and the
respondent No. 3 who are in possession of part of the property are their
licensees. They have given an undertaking to indemnify the State Government
against any claim/rights of any person in possession of any part of the portion
bounded by the points ABCD and BCEF in the map as Annexure 'A'. They have left
to the Court to assess the value to put an end to the dispute.
property in dispute is an evacuee property. Claims of the appellant and
respondent No.3 have not been satisfied inspite of the deposit/adjustment of
the entire amount due from them. There are no other claimants to the property.
Keeping in view the above noted facts and the fact that the parties are at
litigation for the last more than 50 years, in the interest of justice and in
order to put an end to the litigation we deem it appropriate to dispose of the
present appeal in the following terms:
Appellant Raj Kumar shall deposit a sum of Rs. 1,50,000/- over and above to
what has already been deposited by him on or before 31.9.2004;
Respondent No. 3 shall deposit a sum of Rs. 1,25,000/- over and above to what
has already been deposited by him on or before 31.9.2004;
deposit of the said amount the part of the property marked as ABCD in Annexure
A i.e. 400 Sq. Yards in House No. 3 situate in Block No. 13, Mohalla Kasabad, Hissar,
Haryana and the other portion marked as BCEF in Annexure A measuring 320 Sq.
Yards shall vest in the appellant and the Respondent No. 3 respectively;
Appellant and Respondent No. 3 shall indemnify the State Government against any
claim/rights of any person in possession of any part of the portion bounded by
the points ABCD and BCEF respectively; and
deposit of the amount the Tehsildar (Sales) Hissar, or any other officer authorised
to do so, shall within a period of one month issue the requisite sale
certificates in favour of the appellant as well as Respondent No. 3.
appeal is disposed of in terms of the above orders.
will be no order as to costs.
Pages: 1 2