SURINDER SINGH versus CENTRAL GOVERNMENT & ORS.

Citation: [1986] 3 S.C.R. 946 · Decided: 26-09-1986 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M.P. THAKKAR · Disposal: Case Partly allowed
Cited by 3 judgment(s) · cites 5 · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
D 
SURINDER SINGH 
v. 
CENTRAL GOVERNMENT & ORS. 
SEPTEMBER 26, · 1986 
[M.P. THAKKAR AND K.N. SINGH, JJ.] 
Constitution of India, 1950---Artic/e 226-Copy of the impugned 
order to be produced before High Court in writ proceedings-Improper 
for High Court to quash an order not produced before it. 
Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation Compen-
sation) Act 1954/Displaced Persons (Compensation & Rehabilitation) 
Rules, 1955 
Administrative Law-Delegated legislation-Framing of the rules 
is not condition precedent to the exercise of power expressly and uncon-
ditionally conferred by statute. 
E 
The plot in questilin, being an evacuee property was included in 
the compensation pool under s. 14 of the Displaced Persons (Compensa-
tion and Rehabilitation Compensation) Act, 1954 and put to auction 
sale on August 24, 1959. The highest bid of the appellant was provision-
ally accepted and he deposited I/5th of the amount, but failed to deposit 
the balance amount. The Managing Officer, therefore; cancelled the 
f 
auction sale. The Chief Settlement Commissioner set aside the order of 
the Managing Officer and allowed time to the appellant to deposit the 
balance of purchase price by May 30, 1968, but the appellant again 
failed to deposit the amoun~ within time. Consequently the Settlement 
Officer by his order dated October 2, 1968 cancelled the auction sale 
made in appellant's favour and the property was put to auction sale on 
G , January 17, 1%9. Respondents Nos. 2 and 3 made the highest bid and 
deposited 20o/o of the amount. The appellant appealed before the 
Assistant Settlement Officer against the order dated October 2, 1968 
cancelling the auction sale, which was rejected on April 2, 1969. His 
"revision petition was also dismissed on Augnst 13, 1969. However, in 
the petition under s. 33 of the Act made before the Central Govern-
H 
ment, the order cancelling the auction sale held on August 24, 1959 was 
946 
' t 
SURINDER SINGH v. CENTRAL GOVT. 
947 
set aside by the authority exercising the delegated powers of the Central 
Government and granted 15 days' time to the appellant for depositing 
the balance of the purchase price with a condition that on failure to 
deposit the balance of the auction price the petition shall stand dismis-
sed. The appellant again failed to deposit the amount within time, but 
on a request made by him, the time was extended till February 28, 1970 
and the appellant deposited the remaining auction price . within the 
extended time. 
A petition under Article 226 fded by the respondents Nos. 2 and 3 
challenging the order dated February 6, 1970 setting aside the order 
cancelling the auction sale held on August 24, 1959 and order extending 
time till February 28, 1970 and also for a direction to the authorities to 
finalise the auction sale held in their favour on Jlll!uary 17, 1969 was 
dismissed by a Single Judge. The Division Bench, however, allowed the 
Letters Patent Appeal, quashed the orders of delegated authority and 
directed the authorities to finalise the auction sale held in respondents' 
favour and held: (1) that sale of urban agricultural property which 
formed part of the compensation pool could be .held only in. accordance 
with the Rules framed under the Act as contemplated by ss. 8 and 40. 
Since no rules had l;leen framed for the disposal of the urban agri-
cultural property, the Central Government could not lawfully provide 
for sale of the urban agricultural land by executive directions and 
consequently auction sale held on August 24, 1959 was illegal; (2) that 
the delegated authority exercising powers under s. 33 had no jurisdic· 
tion to grant time to the appellant for making deposit or to further 
extend the time to enable him to deposit balance of auction price by 
February 28, 1970; and (3) that the delegated authority had passed 
orders in violation of natural justice as no notice was issued to the 
' 
· respondent Nos. 2 and 3 and no opportunity of hearing was afforded to 
them. 
r..,_ 
Allowing the appellant's appeal partly and modifying the order of 
the High Court, the Court, 
HELD: 1. Sections 8 and 20 of the Dispfaced Persons ( Compen-
sation and Rehabilitation Compensation) Act 1954 provide for pay-
ment of compensation to displaced persons in any of the forms as 
specified including by sale to the displaced persons of any property 
from the compensation pool and setting off the purchase money against 
the compensation to them. [9
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.