Holding

The appellant failed to establish continuous possession as a sub‑lessee and his revision petition was time‑barred; consequently, the Financial Commissioner’s order stands.

Summary

The dispute concerned a 22-kanal agricultural plot that had been auctioned by the Rehabilitation Department and later sold to Rameshwari Dass. Karam Chand claimed to be the sub‑lessee of the land and applied for its transfer in his favour. After the sale was finalized and a conveyance deed issued to Dass, Chand filed a revision petition under Section 24 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954, which was initially allowed by the Chief Settlement Commissioner. The Financial Commissioner, exercising powers under Section 33 of the same Act, set aside that order, holding that Chand had not proved continuous possession as a sub‑lessee and that his petition was barred by the limitation period because it was filed after a five‑and‑a‑half‑year delay without a condonation application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. The Punjab & Haryana High Court dismissed Chand’s writ petition, and the Supreme Court affirmed the Financial Commissioner’s findings, dismissing the appeal.

Issues considered

Whether the appellant proved continuous possession as a sub‑lessee to qualify for transfer of the land under the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954.
Whether the revision petition filed under Section 24 of the Act is barred by limitation and requires condonation under Section 5 of the Limitation Act.
Whether the factual findings of the Financial Commissioner are reviewable by the Court.

Legislation cited

Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954s. 24, s. 33
Limitation Acts. 5

Subjects

Displaced Persons Actsub‑lesseepossessionlimitation periodrevision petitionconveyance deedauction salefactual finding

Judgment

KARAM CHAND A
v.
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

MARCH I9, 2002

[DORAISWAMY RAJU AND ASHOK BHAN, JJ.] B

Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954-
Sections 24 and 33-land-Auction sale-Claim of land by sub-lessee--
Finalisation of auction sale and issuance of conveyance deed in favour of C
auction purchaser-Objection by sub-lessee against issuance of conveyance
deed-Delay in filing objection not explained-Held, claim of sub-lessee not
sustainable since his possession over the land not proved and objection was
time barred

Land in dispute was auction purchased by Respondent No. 4. Appellant D
claiming to be Sub-lessee of the land applied for transfer of the land in his
favour before the Managing Officer. After satisfying the claims of the lessee
- , and sub-lessee-appellant, sale of the land was finalised and conveyance deed
was issued in favour of Respondent No. 4. After 5'/, years of issuance of
conveyance deed, the appellant-sub-lessee preferred revision petition under
S. 24 of Disabled Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954 before E
Chief Settlement Commissioner, against finalisation of the sale and issuance
of the conveyance deed. The petition was allowed and the case was remanded
to Managing Officer for determining the eligibility of the appHlant as sub-
lessee.

In revision petition under S. 33 of the Act, Financial Commissioner set F
aside the order of Chief Settlement Commissioner holding that appellant's
application for transfer of the land in his favour was not maintainable because
he had failed to establish that he was in cultivating possession of the land as
a sub-lessee; that the revision petition under S. 24 of the Act challenging the
conveyance deed was barred by time, and the same was not accompanied by G
• any application for condonation of delay or any explanation for the delay.
High Court dismissed the appeal against the order of Financial Commissioner.
Hence the present appeal.

Dismissing the appeal, the Court
545
H
546 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2002] 2 S.C.R.

A HELD: There is no infirmity in the order passed by the Financial
Commissioner exercising the revisional powers under S. 33 of Displaced
Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954. The finding recorded
by the Financial Commissioner that the appellant ha~ failed to prove his
-
continuous possession of the land as a sub-lessee is a finding on fact. The
revision petition filed by the appellant before the Chief Settlement
B Commissioner was barred by time. The revision petition was not accompanied
by an application under S. 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay.
The appellant was all through aware of the fact that a conveyance deed had
been executed in favour of respondent No. 4. No cause much less sufficient
cause has been shown by the appellant to condone the inordinate delay of r-
f
c five and half years in filing the revision petition before the Chief Settlement
~
Commissioner under S. 24 of the Act. [549-C-G)

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 8723 of
1994.

D From the Judgment and Order dated 27.7.88 of the Punjab and Haryana
High Court in C. W.P. No. 6246 of 1988.

S.K. B'agga and Dr. LB. Gaur for the Appellant. -:i._ __

K.K. Mohan, Hemant Sharma and R.N. Poddar for the Respondents.
E
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

BHAN, J. This appeal is directed against the judgment of a Division
Bench of Punjab & Haryana High Court wherein the Division Bench has
dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellant.
F The brief facts of the case are as follows:

Urban agricultural land measuring 22 kanals 2 marlas comprised in
Khasra Nos. 737, 738, 740 & 741 situated in the revenue estate, Jalandhar
was put to auction by the Rehabilitation department of the Government of
India on 31st July, 1959 in which Rameshwari Dass, husband of Respondent
G
No. 4 offered the highest bid of Rs. 13,600. The sale was confirmed on 24th
September, 1959. One Harnam Singh claiming to be the lessee of the land,·
,.
challenged the aforesaid sale in the High Court of Punjab & Haryana in Civil
Writ Petition No.24of1960. The writ petition was accepted and the concerned
press note and the circular in pursuance thereof and the auction were set
H '
aside on 17.3 .1961 on the ground that the press notes issued by the Central
KARAM CHAND v. U.0.1. [BHAN, J.] 547

Government had no legal force. It is a matter of record that subsequently this A
Court in the case of Surinder Singh v. Central Government and Ors., AIR
(1986) SC 2 I66, held such procedure to be valid.

Karam Chand, appellant herein, claiming to be the sub-lessee of the
land applied for transfer of Khasra No. 737 (5 kanals 10 marlas), Khasra
No.738 (15 kanals 6 marlas) to the Managing Officer of the Central B
Government. During the pendency of his application, the land was again
scheduled for auction for the 4th June, 1969. The appellant filed an application
before the Settlement Commissioner to stay the auction. The Settlement
Commissioner by his order dated 3rd June, 1969 stayed the auction. Ultimately
the appeal filed by the appellant was accepted by the Settlement Commissioner C
on 19th January, 1970 and it was directed that application submitted by him
for the transfer of the land as a sub-lessee should be disposed of according
to the instructions issued by the department. It is pertinent to mention here
that Rameshwari Dass was not made a party in the appeal or in the remand
proceedings before the Managing Officer.
D
On 3rd June 1971 Rameshwari Dass submitted an application to the
Settlement commissioner for finalisation of the sale in his favour in the light
of instructions issued by the Government of India to the effect that after
satisfying the claim of the lessee/sub-lessee, the balance area may be offered
to the so called defeated auction purchaser. His request was accepted and,
after he had deposited the entire amount, the Managing Officer issued a Sale E
Certificate in favour of the auction purchaser on 2 lst August, 1972. On an
objection raised by Karam Chand, appellant herein, Rameshwari Dass
approached the department for issuing a Conveyance Deed instead of the sale
certificate. The Managing Officer by his order dated 19th December, 1977
directed that a conveyance deed be issued in favour of Rameshwari Dass.
F
In the year 1977, Rameshwari Dass filed a Civil Suit for possession
against the appellant and obtained an ex-parte decree on 31st May, 1977 for
possession as well as mesne profits. The appellant on learning about the
aforesaid decree, applied for setting aside of the ex-parte decree. His application

• was allowed on 25th November, 1978. Meanwhile, Rameshwari Dass sold
the land, in dispute, in favour of one Mehnga Ram, respondent no. 6 herein.
This sale was challenged by the appellant and in which ultimately it was held
G

by the Punjab & Haryana High Court by its order dated 3rd September, 1981
that Mehnga Ram was not a bonafide purchaser.

Armed with this judgment, the appellant preferred a revision petition H
548 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2002] 2 S.C.R.

A before the Chief Settlement Commissioner under section 24 of the Displaced
Persons (Compensation & Rehabilitation) Act, 1954 (for short 'the act') against
the finalisation of the sale of the land in dispute in favour of Rameshwari
Dass. His main contention was that during the pendency of the remand order
dated 19th January, 1970 passed by the Settlement Commissioner neither the
B Sale Certificate dated 21st September, 1972 nor the Conveyance Deed dated
20th December, 1977 could have been issued in favour of Rameshwari Dass.

The Chief Settlement Commissioner accepted the revision petition of
the appellant and remanded the case to the Tehsildar(Sales)-cum-Managing
Officer to determine the eligibility of the appellant as a sub-lessee in
C compliance with the remand order of the Settlement Commissioner dated
19th January, 1970. During this period Rameshwari Dass died. His wife
Kailash Wati and his daughter Kaushalya Devi and Mehnga Ram filed a
revision before the notified Authority for exercising power under section 33
of the Act.

D The Financial Commissioner (Revenue) and Secretary to the Government
of Punjab, as a delegate of the Central Government heard the revision petition'.
The order of the Chief Settlement Commissioner was set aside. It was held
that the appellant had failed to establish that the appellant was in the cultivating
possession of the land as a sub-lessee prior to 1.1.1956. That the record
E showed that in the year 1955-56 the land in dispute had been in possession
of Mehar Chand. The appellant had applied for transfer in his favour for the
first time on 15th April, 1967. Jn the Jamabandi for the year 1960-61, one
Jagir Singh had been shown in unauthorised occupation of the land. The
alleged transfer application filed by the appellant for the transfer of the land
in ~ispute as a sub-lessee in the year 1967 was also not forthcoming on the
F record.

Accordingly a finding was recorded on merits by the Financial
Commissioner that the appellant's application for tra.asfer of the land in his
favour was not maintainable. Another point on which the revision petition
G was accepted by the Financial Commissioner was that the revision petition .
filed by the appellant in the year 1983 challenging the conveyance deed
dated 19th December, 1977 before the Chief Settlement Commissioner was
delayed by a period of five and half years and therefore barred by time. The
Chief Settlement Commissioner had failed to take cognizance of the above
fact. The r~vision petition was not accompanied by any application for
H condonation of delay. No affidavit explaining the delay had also been filed.
KARAM CHAND v. U.0.1. [BHAN, J.] 549
Aggrieved against the order of the Financial Commissioner, the appellant A
filed the writ petition, which has been dismissed by the High Court by the
judgment impugned before us.

We agree with the counsel for the appellant that the Division Bench
of the High Court has not given much reasons for dismissing the writ petition.
• The only reason given for not interfering in the matter by the Division Bench B
is that the litigation should be put to an end; at least at some stage.

As the litigation between the parties is going on for the last nearly 40
years, instead of remanding the case back to the High Court for decision on
• merits, we propose to dispose it of ourselves .
c
We do not find any infirmity in the order passed by the Financial
Commissioner exercising the revisional powers under Section 33 of the Act.
The finding recorded by the Financial Commissioner that the appellant had
failed to prove his 'continuous possession of the land as a sub-lessee from
1.1.1956 is a finding on fact. Counsel for the appellant failed to show before D
us with reference to any documentary evidence placed on record at any stage
before the Authorities below or the High Court that the appellant had been
in continuous possession of the land before or after 1st January, 1956. We
further agree with the finding of the Financial Commissioner that the revision
petition filed by the appellant before the Chief Settlement Commissioner was
hopelessly barred by time. The revision petition was not accompanied by an E
application under section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay.
No explanation was offered for the delay in filing the revision petition. It
may be noticed that the appellant was all through aware of the fact that a
conveyance deed had been executed in favour of Rameshwari Dass in the
year 1977. No cause much less sufficient cause has been shown by the
F
appellant to condone the inordinate delay of five & half years in filing the
revision petition before the Chief Settlement Commissioner under Section 24
of the Act.

For the reasons stated above, we do not find any merit in this appeal
and dismiss the same with no order as to costs. G
K.K.T. Appeal dismissed.