As per case facts, the appellant was given possession as a tenant on certain low-lying land. Separately, the respondent had purchased a different property in a 1959 auction. Decades later, ...
No Acts & Articles mentioned in this case
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 6
PETITIONER:
PIARA SINGH
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
STATE OF PUNJAB & OTHERS
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 10/07/2000
BENCH:
A.P. MISRA, J. & M.B. SHAH. J.
JUDGMENT:
Shah, J.
This appeal is filed against the judgment and order
dated 21st August, 1989 passed by the High Court of Punjab and
Haryana in C.W.P.No. 4692 of 1989 whereby the High Court
dismissed the same summarily by upholding the order dated
6.9.1988 passed by the Financial Commissioner Revenue
(Respondent No.1), who rejected the Misc. Reh. No.42 of
1987-88 filed by the appellant under Section 33 of the Displaced
Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954 (hereinafter
referred to as the Act).
The dispute in the present appeal pertains to land
admeasuring 2 Kanals 12 Marlas out of Khasra No.28//23, 24/2
which admeasures 5 Kanals 12 Marlas situated in village Khokhar,
tehsil Dasuya, district Hoshiarpur, Punjab. It has been
contended that the said land was low-lying land and was
classified as gair mumkin toba i.e. pond or tank land, which
was not cultivated for more than 10 years. That land was
evacuee property within the meaning of Section 2 (c) of the Act.
It is the contention of respondent No.2 that on 8.12.1959 the
Tehsildar (Sales) put up for auction a parcel of land stated to
be brick kiln property No.25, total admeasuring 13 Kanals 10
Marlas, which was gair mumkin bhatta. According to the
appellant, what was auctioned was gair mumkin bhatta land and
not the land in dispute which was known as gair mumkin toba. In
the said auction, land was purchased by respondent No.2. On
21st March, 1964 a sale certificate was issued by the H.O.
(Sales), Jalandhar of the Rehabilitation Department, Government
of India. By some error the name of the village was
inaccurately mentioned and the schedule in the sale certificate
read property No.25 brick kiln situated in village Cholong,
district Hoshiarpur. No khasra numbers were given in the
original sale certificate to identify the property. It is also
admitted position that because of acquisition of the land by the
Railways out of the auctioned property, respondent no.2 was
entitled to only a total area admeasuring 7 Kanals and 6 Marlas.
On 17.4.1964 part of this property being Khasra No.28/17/1
admeasuring 7 Kanals 18 Marlas was mutated in the name of
respondent No.2 for a period of 14 years. Respondent No.2
remained satisfied with the mutation and took no steps.
However, on 22.5.1978 he filed an application for issuance of a
corrigendum and the concerned Managing Officer issued
corrigendum to the effect that auction land comprised Khasra
No.R/28/17 total admeasuring 4 Kanals and 14 Marlas in village
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 6
Khokhar. This corrigendum was issued after a site report from
the Tehsildar (Sales), Hoshiarpur.
It is the contention of the appellant that the land in
dispute Khasra
No.R-28//23, 24/2 was also evacuee land and in 1978-79
the appellant was inducted as a tenant. At the time of grant of
such land to the appellant, it has been recorded as low-lying
waste land (pond land) which appellant levelled, fertilised and
irrigated to make it fit for growing green fodder and thereafter
in 1985 onwards the appellant was growing sugarcane thereon.
After grant of land to the appellant as tenant
respondent No.2 filed an application on 25.8.1982 for issue of
further corrigendum for including the land which was granted to
the appellant by stating that it was also sold to him by the
auction held in 1959. That application was rejected by the
Tehsildar (Sales) by order dated 9.2.1983 (Annexure H) by
holding that the Assistant Settlement Officer (Sales) after
having examined the case papers of the Tehsildar, Hoshiarpur had
issued corrigendum on 22.5.1978 and had issued fresh sale
certificate mentioning Khasra No.28//17/2 and 18, admeasuring 4
Kanals 14 Marlas of village Khokhar, district Hoshiarpur. The
request of respondent No.2 for further correction in the sale
certificate was not acceded to as the corrigendum was issued
after proper verification and after obtaining report from
Tehsildar.
Meanwhile, the land held by appellant-tenant was put to
auction on 30.12.1982 and the appellant was the highest bidder
for purchase of the said land. However, the Tehsildar (Sales)
by order dated 30.1.1985 rejected the said auction by holding
that there was defective proclamation (Annexure- I).
Against the order dated 9.2.1983 passed by the
Tehsildar, respondent No.2 preferred appeal under Section 22 of
the Act before the Settlement Commissioner, Mohali, Punjab
without joining the appellant as party- respondent. That appeal
was allowed by order dated 01.12.1983 with a direction to the
Tehsildar (Sales) to examine the relevant revenue record and
issue a fresh corrigendum after hearing the respondent. In the
said order, it was observed that the land purchased at the time
of auction was described as gair mumkin bhatta and because of
the clerical omission lesser area was mentioned in the
corrigendum issued without comparing the pre- consolidation
khasra numbers with the post consolidation killa numbers. He
observed that the clerical mistakes can be rectified at any
time. On the basis of the said order without considering any
thing a corrigendum for sale certificate was issued on 6.2.1985
including the land which was in possession of the appellant.
Against that order, appellant preferred appeal/revision
before the Deputy Commissioner, Hoshiarpur (The Chief Settlement
Commissioner under the Act) wherein it was pointed out that
corrigendum was issued without hearing the appellant and it can
only be issued if there is any clerical or authentic omission
but it cannot be issued for giving alternative area.
Meanwhile, the appellant filed Civil Suit No.168 of 1986
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 6
before Sub Judge, Dasuya for permanent injunction restraining
respondent No.2 not to interfere in any manner in the peaceful
possession of the land measuring 2 Kanals 12 Marlas situated in
village Khokhar, tehsil Dasuya. That suit was decreed
restraining respondent No.2 from interfering in any manner in
peaceful possession of the land in dispute except by following
due course of law. Against that Civil Appeal No.64 of 1986
filed before the District Court was dismissed on 6.10.1986 by
the Addl. District Judge, Hoshiarpur.
Thereafter, appeal/revision filed against the order
dated 1.12.1983 was heard by the Chief Settlement Commissioner,
Hoshiarpur, which 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 rules
there is no bar on issuing of second or more corrigendum if only
arithmetic error is sought to be corrected.
That order was challenged before the Financial
Commissioner (Revenue) under Section 33 of the Act. After
hearing the parties and recording the contentions raised by them
in detail, the Financial Commissioner held that the appellant
was not entitled to any prior notice of hearing before rejection
of his bid because Rule 90 of the Displaced Persons
(Compensation & Rehabilitation) Rules, 1955 gives discretion to
the Settlement Commissioner to accept or reject appeals without
assigning any reasons. He also held that transfer of additional
land in favour of respondent no.2 was well considered and
justified and, therefore, the revision was dismissed. Against
that order writ petition was filed which was summarily
dismissed. That order is challenged in this appeal.
Dr. Roxna Swami, learned counsel appearing for the
appellant vehemently submitted that order passed by the
authorities below issuing so- called corrigendum is, on the face
of it, arbitrary, illegal and is passed to favour respondent
no.2. It has been pointed out that auction sale took place in
1959. Respondent no.2 remained in possession of the property
purchased by him since then and he never raised any objection
that the possession of the auctioned property was not handed
over to him or lesser area was given to him, for more than 23
years. It is also submitted that even in 1978 when respondent
no.2 requested for mentioning of correct name of the village, at
that time also he had not submitted that the area of land which
was given to him was less than what was auctioned. She further
pointed out that Tehsildar rightly first rejected the said
application by order dated 9.2.1983 yet in appeal without
verification of any record and without issuing notice to the
appellant who was in possession of the property as a tenant the
order was set aside and matter was remanded to the Tehsildar for
fresh decision by the Settlement Commissioner. Surprisingly,
without holding any enquiry, on the basis of the said order a
corrigendum was issued on 6.2.1985. This indicates that the
corrigendum dated 6.2.1985 is without any basis and totally
arbitrary. She also submitted that the authorities below erred
in holding that the appellant was not having any locus standi
without considering the fact that the possession of the land was
handed over to the appellant in 1978-79; that he made it
cultivable and thereafter purchased the same in an auction which
took place on 30.12.1982. That auction was set aside
arbitrarily without issuing any notice to the appellant by order
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 6
dated 30.1.1985 on the ground that there was defective
proclamation for sale. On the basis of the aforesaid
submission, learned counsel submitted that the High Court
materially erred in not exercising its jurisdiction and in
rejecting the writ petition summarily. As against this, learned
counsel for respondent no.2 submitted that the order passed by
the authorities was based on record of auction held in 1959 and,
therefore, authorities were having jurisdiction to issue
corrigendum in the year 1982. He further vehemently submitted
that the order passed by the authorities is based upon finding
of fact and, therefore, the High Court rightly refused to
entertain the writ petition and hence this appeal should be
dismissed.
From the facts stated above and from the record, it is
apparent that order issuing so called corrigendum for giving
possession of additional land is grossly arbitrary because:
(a) Auction of the land stated to be the property No.25
was sold in the year 1959 and the possession of the said land
was handed over to respondent no.2 on 8.12.1959. The
authorities issued the sale certificate on 21.3.1964 for the
land purchased at the time of auction. At that time, respondent
no.2 never raised an objection that he was not given possession
of the entire area of the land auctioned and sold in his favour.
(b) In the year 1978, possession of the land in dispute
was given to the appellant as a tenant. At that time also
respondent no.2 had not raised any objection that the said
property was sold to him in the auction.
(c) On 22.5.1978 respondent no.2 filed an application
for issuance of corrigendum and the concerned Managing Officer
issued corrigendum to the effect that the auctioned land
comprised in Khasra No.R/28/17 admeasuring 4 Kanals 14 Marlas in
village Khokhar. This corrigendum was issued after a site
report from Tehsildar (Sales), Hoshiarpur. At that time also
respondent no.2 had not raised any objection that site report or
the corrigendum issued by the concerned Managing Officer was
incorrect.
(d) Respondent no.2 applied only on 25.9.1982 for
issuing of fresh corrigendum correcting the sale certificate
issued in his favour with the request to include the portion of
the land which was in possession of the appellant since 1978.
The said application was rightly rejected by the Tehsildar
(Sales) by order dated 9.2.1983. The said order was set aside
in appeal and the matter was remanded to the Tehsildar (Sales)
to examine the relevant record and to issue a fresh corrigendum
after hearing respondent no.2. It appears that without
recording any reason and without considering anything the
Tehsildar issued the corrigendum (Annexure K) on 6.2.1985
including the land which was in possession of the appellant.
(e) It is mentioned in the orders that what was sold to
respondent no.2 in a public auction held in 1959 was a brick
kiln property no.25, which was known as gair mumkin bhatta.
As against that, the land on which the appellant was inducted as
a tenant was classified as gair mumkin toba i.e. pond or tank
land.
Further, it appears on the record that some portion of
the land which was sold by auction to respondent no.2 was
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 6
acquired by railways and without considering this aspect the
impugned order is passed. Authorities have also not considered
the effect of consolidation proceedings.
In any case, in the present case it cannot be said that
there is clerical or arithmetical error in mentioning khasra
number or its area in the sale certificate. As such, what is
contended by respondent no.2 is the possession of the land
which was sold by auction in his favour in 1959 is not handed
over and only a part of the land was handed over to him in 1959.
This dispute he raised in 1982, that means, after lapse of 23
years. Considering the long lapse of time and the fact that
there is no question of clerical or arithmetic error, the
authorities ought not to have exercised jurisdiction under
Section 25(2) of the Act which only empowers the authority to
correct clerical or arithmetical mistakes in any order or errors
arising therein from any accidental slip or omission. Under the
guise of corrigendum authorities have passed an order handing
over possession of additional land in favour of Respondent No.2.
It is also apparent that the Chief Settlement Commissioner has
not applied his mind to the facts of the case and has only
observed that there is no bar on issuing the second corrigendum
or more corrigendum in correcting the arithmetical error.
Further, the Chief Settlement Commissioner ought to have
considered the fact that the appellant was in possession of the
land as he was inducted as a tenant since 1978. Therefore, he
was having locus standi to file an appeal against the so-called
corrigendum granting additional land which was in his
possession, to respondent no.2.
Lastly, we find much force in the contention raised by
the learned counsel for the appellant that Tehsildar (Sales)
erred in passing the order dated 30.1.1985 (Annexure 'I)
setting aside the auction sale dated 30.12.1982 on the ground of
defective proclamation without issuing any notice to the
appellant. Tehsildar (Sales) ought to have heard the appellant,
whose bid was highest and was accepted on 30.12.1982 before
passing the impugned order after three years. In the present
case, the appellant was in possession of the land as a tenant.
His bid was accepted and if that bid was to be set aside, his
(appellants) rights would be certainly adversely affected,
therefore, he was required to be heard. Since no such
opportunity was afforded to the appellant before passing such
order, it requires to be quashed. [Re: Surinder Singh v.
Central Government and others, (1986) 4 SCC 667].
In view of the aforesaid discussion, the impugned order
passed by the High Court dismissing the writ petition, filed by
the appellant, in limine is set aside. The corrigendum dated
6.2.1985 (Annexure K) issued by the Tehsildar-cum-M.O., Dasuya
correcting the sale certificate by including the land held by
the appellant as a tenant issued in favour of respondent no.2 is
quashed and set aside. Consequently, the impugned orders passed
by the Financial Commissioner Revenue and Secretary to Govt. of
Punjab, Rehabilitation Department and the order passed by the
Chief Settlement Commissioner, Hoshiarpur are set aside. The
order (Annexure I) dated 30.1.1985 passed by the Tehsildar
(Sales) setting aside the auction dated 30.12.1982 is also
quashed. The appeal stands disposed of accordingly with no
order as to costs.
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 6
The Supreme Court of India recently delivered a significant judgment in the case of Piara Singh v. State of Punjab & Others, offering crucial interpretations of the **Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954** and the limitations surrounding **Arbitrary Corrigendum Orders**. This ruling, now available on CaseOn, provides essential guidance for understanding administrative powers, property rights, and the principles of natural justice in rehabilitation cases.
The core of this appeal revolved around a parcel of evacuee land, specifically 2 Kanals 12 Marlas, located in village Khokhar, Punjab. This land, classified as 'gair mumkin toba' (pond or tank land), was initially deemed unfit for cultivation for over a decade. The dispute began with an auction in 1959, where Respondent No.2 purchased a property described as 'brick kiln property no.25' (gair mumkin bhatta). A sale certificate was issued in 1964, but it contained inaccuracies regarding the village name and lacked specific khasra numbers.
Years later, in 1978, the appellant, Piara Singh, was inducted as a tenant on the disputed land, which he subsequently improved for cultivation. Meanwhile, Respondent No.2, after a significant delay, began a series of applications for 'corrigenda' (corrections) to his original sale certificate, eventually seeking to include the land occupied by Piara Singh, claiming it was part of his 1959 purchase.
The primary legal question before the Supreme Court was whether administrative authorities could issue multiple corrigenda to a sale certificate, decades after the original transaction, to transfer additional land—especially when such land was already in the possession of another party (the appellant) and had a different classification than the initially auctioned property. The case also raised critical questions about the appellant's locus standi to challenge these administrative actions and the legality of setting aside his auction bid without due notice.
The Court considered several key legal principles and statutory provisions:
Specifically, Section 25(2) of the Act, which empowers authorities to correct clerical or arithmetical mistakes or accidental slips/omissions. The Court examined whether this section could be stretched to alter the substance of a sale certificate or transfer new land.
Rule 90, granting the Settlement Commissioner discretion to accept or reject appeals without assigning reasons, was scrutinized in the context of fairness.
The fundamental right to be heard, especially when an administrative decision affects an individual's rights or property, was a central tenet of the appellant's argument.
The Court assessed whether the actions of the administrative authorities amounted to arbitrary exercise of power, violating constitutional safeguards.
The standing of the appellant to challenge the corrigenda and subsequent orders was also a point of contention, particularly given his status as a tenant and later as a highest bidder in an auction.
The Supreme Court meticulously analyzed the sequence of events and the decisions made by various authorities:
Respondent No.2 purchased brick kiln land in 1959. Despite the 1964 sale certificate having inaccuracies, Respondent No.2 raised no objection about receiving less land for 23 years. It was only in 1982 that he sought a 'further corrigendum' to include the land then occupied by Piara Singh.
Initially, the Tehsildar rejected Respondent No.2's application for the extended corrigendum in 1983. However, the Settlement Commissioner, in an appeal where Piara Singh was not made a party, set aside this rejection and ordered a fresh corrigendum. Crucially, in 1985, a corrigendum was issued including the appellant's land, without any hearing provided to Piara Singh, who was in peaceful possession of the property.
Concurrently, in 1982, the land held by Piara Singh was put up for auction, and he emerged as the highest bidder. However, the Tehsildar arbitrarily rejected this auction in 1985, citing 'defective proclamation' but again, without any notice to Piara Singh. Piara Singh also successfully filed a civil suit, securing a permanent injunction against Respondent No.2's interference with his possession.
The Chief Settlement Commissioner dismissed Piara Singh's appeal, asserting he lacked locus standi and that there was 'no bar' to issuing multiple corrigenda for arithmetic errors. The Financial Commissioner further upheld the transfer to Respondent No.2, citing the discretion under Rule 90 for rejecting the appellant's bid without prior notice. The High Court summarily dismissed Piara Singh's writ petition.
The Supreme Court found significant flaws in the actions of the lower authorities, terming them 'grossly arbitrary':
Legal professionals analyzing such complex rulings can greatly benefit from CaseOn.in's 2-minute audio briefs, which distill the essence of these specific judgments, making it easier to grasp the nuances and implications efficiently.
The Supreme Court firmly rejected the arbitrary actions of the administrative authorities. It set aside the High Court's summary dismissal of the writ petition. Consequently, the corrigendum dated 6.2.1985, which had included Piara Singh's land for transfer to Respondent No.2, was quashed. All preceding orders from the Financial Commissioner, the Secretary to the Government of Punjab, the Chief Settlement Commissioner, and the Tehsildar (Sales) – including the one setting aside Piara Singh's 1982 auction – were also set aside. This judgment reinforces the sanctity of due process and the limits of administrative power, particularly in cases affecting property rights.
All information provided in this analysis is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Readers are encouraged to consult with a qualified legal professional for advice on specific legal issues.
Legal Notes
Add a Note....