KARAM CHAND versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

Citation: [2002] 2 S.C.R. 545 · Decided: 19-03-2002 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: DORAISWAMY RAJU · Disposal: Dismissed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

- , 
• 
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 
B 
revision petition filed by the appellant before the Chief Settlement 
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 
G India on 31st July, 1959 in which Rameshwari Dass, husband of Respondent 
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 t
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.