ORDER These are appeals arising from the decisions of the Chief Settlement Commissioner (Rehabilitation) in case no. 21/2001-CSC dated 3.1.2004 and no. 22/2001-CSC dated 3.1.2004. These are being taken up together because the legal issues are the same and the learned counsel in both the cases are the same who gave common arguments. 2. The facts of the cases, in brief, and as made out from the records, are that the Chief Settlement Commissioner received complaints from the Sub Divisional Officer (Civil)-cum-Settlement Officer (Sales), Kangra that in 1996 the Naib Tehsildar (Sales)-cum Managing Officer; Kangra, sold evacuee land to Shri Sansar Chand Mahahan comprised in khasra no. 7040 measuring 34.6 sq. yards in Chamba town fraudulently and without following procedures to the present petitioner for a consideration of Rs. 12500/-. (The complaint itself is not in the file). Similarly land comprised in khasra no. 1281/1096, 1104 and 1105 kita 3 measuring 8-11 bighas in mauza Haripur, Pargana Rajnagar, Tehsil Chamba was sold to Shri Chain Singh at a meager price of Rs. 10,000/. The Chief Settlement Commissioner felt that the amounts received were not commensurate with the price of the land keeping in view their location, that the Naib Tehsildar (Sales) had not followed the proper procedures applicable and also that the action of the Naib Tehsildar (Sales) was detrimental to the interest of the State. 3. Accordingly exercising powers u/s 24 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation & Rehabilitation) Act, 1954, the Commissioner issued a showcause notices to both the petitioners in 2001. Upon receot of the same, the petitioners contested the matter but to avoid further litigation (as claimed), agreed to pay the present market value of the land. The District Attorney who represented the State before the Commissioner apparently said that he had no objection if the highest market value is charged from the petitioners by the passing of a special order as per the provisions of Rule 87 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation & Rehabilitation) Rules, 1955. The Commissioner thereafter ordered the regularization of the land sold to the petitioners at the then (i.e. 2004) highest market value as approved by the competent authority. The petitioner have contested this through the present petitions. 4. In their petitions, the petitioners have alleged that the impugned orders suffer from material irregularities and illegalities. The Commissioner thereafter ordered the regularization of the land sold to the petitioners at the then (i.e. 2004) highest market value as approved by the competent authority. The petitioner have contested this through the present petitions. 4. In their petitions, the petitioners have alleged that the impugned orders suffer from material irregularities and illegalities. Further they have alleged that the court below has lost sight of the fact that since a lot of improvements had been made as a result of whih the market value of the land had increased manifold. 'They would therefore prefer to pay the market value of the land in question in 1996 and not in 2004 i.e. the date of the passing of the Commissioner's orders. The petitioners have requested that the impugned order may be modified so that the market value of the land as prevailing in the year 1996 is charged from them and further that the amount already paid by them should be adjusted therefrom. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioners started his arguments by stating that the matter relates to evacuee property. The petitioners were given opportunity by Naib Tehsildar (Sales) to purchase the lands. The petitioners had applied for the same and upon being asked to deposit the amounts decided by the Naib Tehsildar (Sales) the petitioners had deposited the amounts in the treasury. The Naib Tehsildar (Sales) thereafter gave the petitioners the conveyance deeds and also permitted them to occupy the properties. About 6 years from the date of occupation, the petitioners received notices from the Chief Settlement Commissioner that the properties were transferred illegally. The petitioners had replied that they were not aware of anything that was wrong with the transaction. The learned counsel further emphasized that the points raised in the notice could not have been taken up at that belated stage. Once the property is sold, it does not remain evacuee property. As regards exercising of suo motu powers by the Commissioner, learned counsel stated that the such powers have to be exercised within reasonable time. He cited a judgement of the Hon 'ble Court of HP in Mangheru vs. State of HP & Others (1981 Sim. LC. 431) wherein the High Court had held that such powers have to be exercised within reasonable time. He cited a judgement of the Hon 'ble Court of HP in Mangheru vs. State of HP & Others (1981 Sim. LC. 431) wherein the High Court had held that such powers have to be exercised within reasonable time. The Hon 'ble High Court further laid down the rule that a period of 3 years would be reasonable for the exercise of such powers. Learned counsel further said that the petitioner should not be asked to pay market price on the date of the order of the Chief Settlement Commissioner i.e. 2004 when it was too much. 6. Learned District Attorney (Revenue) supported the order of the Commissioner saying that in the circumstances of the case, order of the Chief Settlement Commissioner is alright. In rebuttal, learned counsel for the petitioners stated that the price was too much. In case the petitioners are asked to pay the price prevailing in 2004, they will face great hardship. The petitioners; may at the most, be charged the market price prevailing on the date of purchase. 7. The records of the case have been perused. The Chief Settlement Commissioner has given reasons as to why he ordered the payment of the highest market value for the "current year" i.e. 2004; it was basically to undo the damage done by the Naib Tehsildar (Sales). The Commissioner -found that the Naib Tehsildar (Sales) committed illegalities and the lands had been transferred improperly, illegally and unauthorisedly. The Naib Tehsildar (Sales) was not competent to carry out the sale. The Naib Tehsildar (Sales)' files concerning these matters were also incomplete. 8. The transactions took place in 1996 and the showcause notices were issued to the petitioners in 2004. As stated by learned counsel for the petitioners, the Hon 'ble High Court of HP has indeed laid down the rule that the power of revision, etc., has to be exercised within reasonable time which the Hon 'ble High Court has set at 3 years. In the case referred to at para 5 above, at para 20 the Hon'ble High Court has ruled that "........ We cannot allow a party to reap the fruits of his deception or fraud simply on the ground that it has successfully kept them concealed over a sufficiently long period of time. However, once the fraud is uncovered then action is required to be taken within a reasonable time thereafter. We cannot allow a party to reap the fruits of his deception or fraud simply on the ground that it has successfully kept them concealed over a sufficiently long period of time. However, once the fraud is uncovered then action is required to be taken within a reasonable time thereafter. Article 56 of the Limitation Act lays down a limitation of three years from the date of the knowledge of fraud, and we are of the opinion that it will be reasonable to lay down that ordinarily within a period of three years from the date of knowledge of fraud the suo motu powers can be exercised. "in other words, we need to first check when the Commissioner got to know of the fraud. From the files of the Commissioner, it emerges that the Commissioner came to know of the illegalities committed by the Naib Tehsildar (Slates) from letters of the Sub Divisional Officer ,(Civil), Chamba, sometime in 2001 as the cases are numbered 21/2001-CSC and 27/2001-CSC. (The letters are not in the files of the Commissioner). Therefore the period of 3 years will start from 2001. The Commissioner exercised his suo motu powers u/s 24 of the Act and started proceedings from 27.4.2002. This was thus very much within a period of 3 years laid down by the Hon'ble High Court. 9. Apart from the point regarding timely exercise of powers by the Chief Settlement Commissioner, there is nothing substantial in the petitions or in the arguments. The petitioners have even agreed to pay a higher price, though learned counsel has said that it will cause the petitioners great hardship. When any Government officer does anything which he was not competent to do and this results in substantial benefit to a person, it stands proved by implication that the person was a party to the wrong action of the Government officer. It may cause hardship but such a person cannot be allowed to enjoy the results of his wrong actions. 10. In these circumstances, the order of the Chief Settlement Commissioner are correct and are upheld. The amounts already paid should however be adjusted. The petitions are accordingly dismissed. 11. Announced in the open court today the 3rd July, 2009. The records of the courts below be returned and these cases file be consigned to the record room after due completion. M.R.S.