SURINDER SINGH versus CENTRAL GOVERNMENT & ORS.

SURINDER SINGH versus CENTRAL GOVERNMENT & ORS.

Central Government has power under the Act to dispose pool property by sale to displaced persons and issue administrative directions even without specific rules. Extension of time for deposit of auction price was within the delegated authority's jurisdiction under s.33 and did not amount to review. However, natural justice requires notice to affected parties; since respondents were not heard, High Court's quashing of orders was justified. Matter to be reconsidered after affording hearing to affected respondents.

Parties
Appellant: Surinder Singh; Respondents: Central Government & Ors.; Respondent: Sohan Lal; Respondent: Sunder Lal
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
26 September 1986
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Division Bench Judgment in Letters Patent Appeal, Punjab & Haryana High Court
Outcome
appeal allowed in part; order modified
Legal Topics
Delegated Legislation, Natural Justice, Auction Sale of Evacuee Property, Compensation to Displaced Persons
Constitutional Law Administrative Law Property Law Delegated Legislation Natural Justice Auction Sale of Evacuee Property Compensation to Displaced Persons

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Surinder Singh

Appellant

Central Government & Ors.

Respondents

Sohan Lal

Respondent

Sunder Lal

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Division Bench Judgment in Letters Patent Appeal, Punjab & Haryana High Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Central Government can dispose urban agricultural land by auction sale without rules under Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation Compensation) Act, 1954
  2. 2 Whether delegated authority under section 33 can grant or extend time for deposit of auction price
  3. 3 Whether extension of time amounted to review of prior order

Ratio Decidendi

Central Government has power under the Act to dispose pool property by sale to displaced persons and issue administrative directions even without specific rules. Extension of time for deposit of auction price was within the delegated authority's jurisdiction under s.33 and did not amount to review. However, natural justice requires notice to affected parties; since respondents were not heard, High Court's quashing of orders was justified. Matter to be reconsidered after affording hearing to affected respondents.

Court Disposition

appeal allowed in part; order modified

Orders

  • Central Government or delegated authority under s.33 to consider appellant's petition afresh in accordance with law after notice and hearing to respondents Sohan Lal and Sunder Lal
  • No order as to costs