GURBAX SINGH S/O CHANDA SINGH versus FINANCIAL COMMISSIONER AND ANR.

Citation: [1990] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 14 · Decided: 21-09-1990 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S. RANGANATHAN · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
GURBAX SINGH S10 CHANDA SINGH 
v. 
FINANCIAL COMMISSIONER AND ANR. 
SEPTEMBER 21. 1990 
[S. RANGANATHAN AND K.N. SAIKIA JJ.] 
Displaced persons Compensation & Rehabilitation Act 19541Dis-
placed persons Compensation and Rehabilitation Rules 1955-Sections 
14, 34C/Rules 34C, 34H and 92-Allotment of agricultural land-Bona 
fide purchaser of la.nd at public auction-Right of 
The appellant, a retired army subedar and also a displaced person 
from west Pakistan purchased the Land in public auction conducted by 
The Rehabilitation Department, by offering the highest bid of 
Rs.9,500. The land in dispute measured 7 Kanals & 4 Marlas and was 
owned by one Vinod Kumar. Having paid the purchase money with the 
D 
sincere hope of his rehabilitation, he had to be in protracted litigation 
for 22 years during which he earned nothing out of the land because the 
State did not honour its fmal commitment made in the sale certificate in 
favour of the appellant. The· State confirmed the sale in favour of the 
appellant in 1969 but issued sale certificate on 23 June, 1973 being 
effective from Sep.tember 15, 1969 without waiting for the fmal out 
E 
come of the second respondent's revision application to the Chief Settle-
ment Commissioner, and further consequent proceedings thereon. 
It was submitted by the second respondent that the said land was 
in his cultivatory possession since 1956 and as per public records he was 
sub-lessee under Budha Singh Lessee, and the Lease in favour of Budha 
F 
Singh was cancelled in 1958 by the Rehabilitation Department and 
thereafter he became a sub-tenant holding over on the date he applied 
for allotment in 1961, under Rule 34C of the Rules. The decision reject-
ing his first application was not commnnicated to him. So he made his 
second application which was rejected by The Chief Settlement Officer 
vide his order dated July 24th, 1969. Then he moved a revision applica-
G 
lion before the Chief Settlement Commissioner who remanded the case 
to the Managing Officer for fresh decision by his order dated July 29, 
1970. The second respondent's second application was rejected on 
March 22, 1973. The second appeal to the Settlement Commissioner 
was also rejected on May 13, 1973 as he could not prove his continuous 
cultivatory possession as a sub-lessee under Budha Singh from January 
H 
1, 1956 till the termination of the latter's lease. Thereafter second 
14 
GURBAX SINGH v. FINANCIAL COMMR. 
15 
respondent institnted a suit against Budha Singh for declaration of his 
continuous possession of the land and got a decree in his favour as heji\g 
in continuous possession of the land. 
· 
The second respondent again filed a revision against the appellate 
order of the Settlement Commissioner, which was remanded 'to the 
Managing officer and he got land alloted under Rule 34C of the Rules 
vide order dated January 6th, 1978. The appellant's appeal therefrom 
was dismissed by the Settlement Commissioner, but in his revision 
application therefrom, the allotment order iri favonr of the .second 
respondent was quashed by the Chief Settlement Commisioner vide his 
order dated January 1, 1979 declaring the appellant to be the ?Uction 
purchaser and therefore the true owner of the Land. The second respon-
dent's revision was rejected by the Financial Commissioner on Oct. 23, 
1979. Thus all authorities in th~ successive rounds found the facts 
against the second respondent. 
· Therefore, the second resondent filed a writ petition challenging 
A 
B 
c 
the Financial Commissioner's order in the High Court. High Court 
D 
remanded the case to the Financial Commissioner for fresh decision on 
January 7, 1983. The Financial Commissioner vide his order February 
2, 1988 held that the second respondent was eligible for allotment of 
land under rule 34C of the rules, holding that being a sub-lessee in 
contilmous possession since January 1, 1956, and thereafter he had a 
superior claim to the allotment of the land and qnashed the auction sale 
E 
made in favour of the appellant on August 11, 1967. 
The Financial Commissioner found that since 1953 to 1961 the 
second respondent was in possession of the land and again in 1964-65, 
65-66 the records also bore out this fact. The absence of records for 
1961-62, 62-63 due to their illegibility due to mutilation should not he 
F 
held against him and his continuous possession since 1962 can be pre-
sumed entitling him to an allotment under Rule 34 C of the Rules

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.