PIARA SINGH versus STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS.

Citation: [2000] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 464 · Decided: 10-07-2000 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: AJAY PRAKASH MISRA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
PIARA SINGH 
v. 
STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS. 
JULY 10, 2000 
[A.P. MISRA AND M.B. SHAH, JJ.] 
Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954: 
Sections 25(2) and 33. 
Power-Exercise of_:._Land sold to auction-purchaser who did not raise 
any objection regarding area of land-There was no clerical or arithmetical 
mistake-However, after 23 years auction-purchaser applied for fresh 
corrigendum for including land which was in possession of a tenant-Tehsi/dar 
rejected the said application which was allowed in appeal-Tenant's appeal 
D challenging the corrigendum under S.33 dismissed by Financ/al 
Commissioner-Correctness of-Held; The order issuing the corrigendum is 
grossly arbitrary-Hence, High Court erred in upholding the order of 
Financial Commissioner-Displaced Persons (Compensation & 
Rehabilitation) Rules, 1955, R.90. 
E 
Administrative Law: 
Natural Justice-Audi alteram partem-Rule of-Auction sale-Setting 
aside of-On ground of defective proclamation-Without issuing notice to 
highest bidder-Validity of-Held: Before setting aside sale highest bidder 
is required to be heard since his rights are affected-Hence, setting aside of 
F sale quashed 
Practice and Procedure: 
Locus standi-Appeal-Right to file-Auction-sale-Land in possession 
G of tenant granted to auction-purchaser through a corrigendum-Held: Tenant 
has locus standi to file appeal against said corrigendum. 
Words and Phrases: 
"Gair mumkin toba"-Meaning of 
H 
464 
PIARA SINGH v. STATE 
465 
Respondent No. 2 purchased a certain area of land in an auction under A 
the provisions of the Displaced Persons (Compensation attd Rehabilitation) 
Act, 1954. The Rehabilitation Department issued a sale certificate. After 23 
years, respondent No. 2 applied for a corrigendum for including the land which 
was in possession of the appellant-tenant stating that it was also sold to him 
by auction. The Tehsildar (Sales) rejected the application. 
Meanwhile, the land held by the appellant was put to auction .md the 
. appellant was the highest bidder for purchase of the said land. However, the 
Tehsildar (Sales) rejected the auction by holding that there was defective 
proclamation. 
Against the said rejection, respondent No. 2 preferred an appeal before 
the Settlement Commissioner without joining the appellant as party-
respondent. The appeal was allowed and without considering anything a 
corrigendum for sale certificate was issued including the land, which was in 
possession of the appellant. 
B 
c 
D 
Against that order, appellant preferred appeal/revision before the Chief 
Settlement Commissioner. The appeal was dismissed on the ground that the 
appellant did not have any locus standi to file the said appeal or revision as 
auction in his favour had been cancelled by the Settlement Commissioner. He 
also observed that under the Displaced Persons (Compensation & 
Rehabilitation) Rules, 1955 there was no bar on issuing of second or more E 
corrigenda if only arithmetical error was sought to be corrected. The Financial 
Commissioner (Revenue) also dismissed the appeal. The High Court 
summarily dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellant. Hence this appeal. 
On behalf of the appellant it was contended that the Tehsildar (Sales) 
erred in passing the order setting aside the auction sale on the ground of F 
defective proclamation without issuing a notice to the appellant. 
Allowing the appeal, this Court 
HELD: I. The order issuing the so-called corrigendum for giving G 
possession of additional land is grossly arbitrary. As such, what is contended 
by respondent No. 2 is the possession of the land, which was sold by auctioD 
in his favour, is not handed over and only a part of the land was handed over 
to him. This dispute he raised after a lapse of 23 years. Considering the long 
lapse of time and the fact that there is no question of clerical or arithmetical 
error, the authorities ought not to have exercised jurisdiction under Section H 
466 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2000) SUPP. I S.C.R. 
A 25(2) of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954 
which onl· empowers the authority to correct clerical or arithmetical 
mistak•s in any order or errors arising therein from any accidental slip or 
omission. Under the guise of corrigendum the authorities have passed an order 
handing over the possession of additional land in favour of respondent No. 2. 
B It is also apparent that the Chief Settlement Commissioner has not appl
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.