Research › Browse › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

1998 DIGILAW 828 (RAJ)

Bhajan Lal v. U. O. I.

1998-08-04

B.J.SHETHNA, MOHD.YAMIN

body1998
Honble SHETHNA, J.–These six appeals are arising out of the common judgment and order dated 19.12.86 passed by the learned single Judge whereby the learned singly Judge dismissed all the six writ petitions filed by the different petitioners, therefore, the same are disposed of by this common judgment. (2). In Special Appeals No.11/87, 15/87 and 65/87, learned counsel Shri Bishnoi appears for the appellants-petitioners and in special appeal No.70/87, 71/87 and 85/87 learned counsel Shri Garg appears for the appellants-petitioners. In all these appeals, learned Additional A.G. Shri Udawat appears for the State of Rajasthan and the colonisation Commissioner i.e. respondents No. 3 and 4 and Mr. Lal appears for the respondent No. 1 and 2 Union of India and Ministry of Supply and Rehabili- tation respectively. (3). Mr. Bishnoi, learned counsel appearing for the appellants- petitioners in Special Appeals No.11/87, 15/87 and 65/87 submitted that issuance of notice dt.2.7.77 by the authority is meaningless as the decision is already taken in the meeting held between the Union Minister of Supply and Rehabilitation with the Re- venue and Rehabilitation Minister of the State Govt. on 24th August, 1976 to evacute the appellants. He submitted that the authority will not be able to go beyond the joint decision taken by the Union Minister of Supply and Rehabilitation and the Revenue and Rehabilitation Minister of the State of Rajasthan. He, therefore, submitted that though it is a notice, the petitioners had challenged the same before this Court as it is totally meaningless to appear before the authority and file reply in pursuance to the notice issued by the authority. We are afraid we cannot accept this submission for the simple reason that the impugned notice was issued under Sec.33 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act,1954 (for short, `the Act 1954`). Sec. 33 of the Act, 1954 clearly provides that the Central Govt. may at any time call for the record of any proceedings under the Act and may pass such order in relation thereto as, in its opinion, the circumstances of the case require and as is not inconsistent with any of the provisions contained in the Act or the Rules made thereunder. Before passing order, some decision has to be taken and opinion has to be formed as to whether the matter could be taken up in suo motu jurisdiction by the Govt. under Sec.33 of the Act. Annex. Before passing order, some decision has to be taken and opinion has to be formed as to whether the matter could be taken up in suo motu jurisdiction by the Govt. under Sec.33 of the Act. Annex. 12 in DB Civil Special Appeal No.65/87, is a joint decision taken by the Union Minister of Supply and Rehabilitation and the Revenue and Rehabilitation Minister of the State of Rajasthan to review the cases under Sec.33 of the Act. It cannot be said by any stretch of ima- gination that the Government had already taken a final decision in the matter, therefore, to appear before the authority in pursuance to the impugned notice dt.2.7.77 would be an exercise in futility. The minutes of the meeting (Annex.12) cannot be said to be a final decision. It can be said to be an opinion formed by the Govt. or at the most it was a tentative decision which can always be annulled or modified by the authority after hearing the concerned parties. In our opinion instead of appearing before the authority by filing the reply, the appellants-petitioners have unnecessarily rushed to this Court by way of writ petitions. It was always open to them to first appear before the authority and convince the authority to discharge the notice and to drop the suo motu proceedings initiated under Sec.33 of the Act. Therefore, only on this ground, all these appeals filed by Mr. Bishnoi are required to be dismissed. (4). Learned counsel Shri Bishnoi and Shri Garg then submitted that the impugned order passed by the learned single Judge dismissing all the writ petitions is illegal and liable to be set aside as the learned Single Judge has not at all consi- dered the fact that they are displaced persons and suffering since last more than 50 years. It was submitted by them that the petitioners got a clear undisputed title to the property, therefore State cannot deprive them of its possession by unlawful matters. The learned single Judge was of the opinion that the cases on hand before us were not that type of cases where the petitioners got a clear undisputed title to the property. It was submitted by them that the petitioners got a clear undisputed title to the property, therefore State cannot deprive them of its possession by unlawful matters. The learned single Judge was of the opinion that the cases on hand before us were not that type of cases where the petitioners got a clear undisputed title to the property. The learned Single Judge also found that the question of allotments were not free from duty, therefore, he was of the view that no such direction can be issued in exercise of its powers under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India for giving possession after 31 years where there were all possibilities of land changing several hands. Having gone through the reasons assigned by the learned single Judge in his order, we are in complete agreement with the same. Hence, the submission made by both the learned counsel for the appellants is required to be rejected. (5). It was then submitted by learned counsel Shri Garg that the appellants have suffered so much that they should be straight away awarded at least minimum amount of Rs.50,000/-by way of compensation. We are afraid w.e.f. cannot accept this submission. The question of compensation cannot be decided by this court in Special Appeal particularly when the learned Single Judge was of the opinion that for compensation, the petitioners should resort to the remedy of filing a regular Civil suit where all the disputed questions of facts involved in the matter can be properly adjudicated by the court after adducing the evidence. we are in complet agreement with the view taken by the learned Single Judge. (6). In view of the above discussions, we do not find any substance or merits in all these appeals. Accordingly, they fail and are dismissed with no order as to costs. Stay order, if any granted earlier in any of these appeals, stands vacated forthwith. (7). Before parting, we may make it clear that any of the appellant-petitioners wants to approach the authority in pursuance of the notice issued by the authority then he may do so within one month from today. It goes without saying that as and when they appear before the authority, the authority is bound to take final decision in accordace with law after considering the reply, if any, filed by them.