HANS RAJ BANGA versus RAM CHANDER AGGARWAL

Citation: [2005] 3 S.C.R. 994 · Decided: 29-04-2005 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ASHOK BHAN · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
HANS RAJ BANGA 
v. 
RAM CHANDER AGGARWAL 
APRIL 29, 2005 
[ASHOK BHAN AND A.K. MATHUR, JJ.] 
Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954-
Sections 14 and 29-Administration of Evacuee Property Act, 1950-Section 
C 2( a)-Construction of market by Government and formed part of compensation 
pool which was to be transferred on ownership basis to the displaced person-
Squatterer not being a displaced person, occupying land.before the construction 
of market and seeking transfer of shop-Order of High Court that the 
Department could sell shop by auction or by inviting tender and giving 
opportunity to the occupier of the shop-Tenders invited-Squatterer did not 
D participate-Sale confirmed in favour of purchaser-Non-payment of rent by 
occupier within. sixty days from the date of sale-Suit for possession and 
damages-Grant of decree of possession in favour of purchaser holding him 
to be the owner of the property-High Court set aside the decree-On appeal 
held: Squatterer did not pay rent due within the stipulated period as such 
squatterer and also his successor-in-interest not a tenant of purchaser-
£ 
Squatterer also not a displaced person as such not covered by Notification 
issued under sei:tion 29 of the Act, hence not entitled to protection from 
eviction-Furthermore, sale of shop in favour of purchaser by inviting tender 
valid, property was an evacuee property and the issue of ownership and 
validity of sale concluded earlier proceedings as such occupier estopped from 
F challenging the sale and ownership-Hence, purchaser became the owner of 
property and entitled to possession and damages in terms of decree by Trial 
Court. 
The Ministry of Rehabilitation constructed a f!larket, a Government 
built in property and it formed part of the compensation pool within the 
G meaning of Section 14 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and 
Rehabilitation) Act, 1954 which was to be transferred on ownership basis · 
to displaced persons only. B;..squatterer, predecessor-in-interest of the 
respondent occupied land before ~he construction of market and ·was 
offered shop as temporary measure as alternative accommodation. B 
H 
994 
.. 
HANS RAJ BANGA v. RAM CHANDER AGGARWAL 
995 
though not a displaced person sought transfer of the shop in his favour. A 
High Court disposed of the writ petition holding that the Department could 
sell the shop by public or private auction or by calling tenders and the 
occupier would be given equal opportunity to give his bid. Department 
invited tenders for sale of the shop. B did not participate in the sale and 
the tender of the appellant being highest was accepted and the sale was 
confirmed in his favour. B died but neither B nor his successor-in-interest B 
nor any legal heir paid rent to the appellant from the inception of the 
tenancy as per the sale condition, as such demand notice was issued. 
Appellant filed suit for possession and recovery of damages. 
Meanwhile respondent and other legal heirs of B filed petition for quashing C 
of sale in favour of the appellant since they came to know about the sale 
recently. Rehabilitation Authorities and the High Court upheld the sale 
and transfer of the shop in favour of the appellant. Appeal in this Court 
was dismissed as withdrawn and as a result sale made in favour of the 
appellant attained finality. Trial Court decreed the suit for possession of 
the suit property in favour of the appellant. High Court set aside the order D 
of High Court. It held that the sale made in favour of the appellant by 
inviting tenders was invalid; that in the earlier proceedings only the 
question of the validity of sale was involved which attained finality and 
not the issue of ownership; that the property was not evacuee property; 
that section 29 of the Act was not applicable to the facts of the case; and E 
that the respondent was tenant of the suit property. Hence the present 
appeal. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD : 1. The High Court erred in setting aside the decree of F 
possession of suit property in favour of the appellant and therefore, 
judgment and decree passed by the High Court is set aside and that of 
the Trial Court is restored. (1009-DJ 
2.1. It is clear from the reading of the order of High Court in the 
writ petition filed by predecessor-in-interest of the respondent that the G 
Department had the option to sell the suit property either by auction, 
public or private, or by calling the tenders. The Depa

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