# BEANT SINGH v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS

- **Citation:** [1977] 2 S.C.R. 122
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1976-11-18
- **Case number:** Civil Appeal No. 333 of 1969
- **Bench:** M. H. Beg, Jaswant Singh
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/beant-singh-v-union-of-india-ors-7010
- **Pages:** 6

## Headnote

Constitution of India, Article 226-High Court's rejection of fin(/ings of facts.
by departmental authorities, 1vhen justified-Article 136, interference by Supreme
Court, rule of practice.
The property under dispute was put up for sale at two different auctions by
the Ma·naging Officer, Amritsar.
The Rehabilitation authorities cancelled the
bid of the first auction purchaser Smt. Rup Kaur, holding that she had failed
to deposit the sale price in spite of issuing her a registered notice, and at the·
second auction the appellant's bid was accepted. In a petition filed under Art.
226, a Single Judge of the High Court found the findings of facts to be erro·
neous and the impugned order void, and granted a writ in favour of Smt. Rup
Kaur.
On appeal, the decision was upheld by a Division Bench of the High
Court.
Dismissing the appeal the Court,
HELD : ( 1) The High Court does not sit as a court of appeal to substitute
its own judgment for that of the authorities which are empowered to give their
decisions, but apart from jurisdictional errors, the High Court may
correct
errors apparent on the face of the record. An error to be apparent must be one
which does not take prolonged arguments to bring it to the surface. The Single·
Judge's conclusion that provisions of Rule 90 of the Displaced Persons Compensation and Rehabilitation Rules, 1955, had not been complied with, was not
erroneous. f123C-D. 126E-Fl
S. L. Hegde & Ors. v. M. B. Tirumale [1960] (1) SCR 890, applied
Hiralal Kher v. The Chief Settlement Co111111issie11er New Delhi [19611 P.L.R.
560, referred to.
(2) It is a settled rule of practice of this Court not to interfere with the·
exercise of discretionary powers of High Courts under Art. 226 of the Constitution merely because two views are possible upon the facts of a case.
For
qterference by this Court, the question must involve atleast a matter of public
or general importance or the injustice suffered by an individual due to an error
of Jaw should be so gross as to touch the c_onscience of this Court in which case
it would be deemed to be one of more than private importance. [123E-F]
CrvrL APPELLATE JURISDJCTION : Civil Appeal No. 333 of 1969.
(Appeal by Special Leave from the Order dated the 22-8-1968 of
the Punjab and Haryana High Court in LP.A. No. 427 of 1968).
B. Sen and H. K. Puri, for the appellant
S. K. Mehta, P. N. Puri and K. R.Nagaraja, for respondent No. 5.

## Text

A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
122
BEANT SINGH
v.
UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
November 18, 1976
[M. H. BEG AND JASWANT SINGH, JJ.]
Constitution of India, Article 226-High Court's rejection of fin(/ings of facts.
by departmental authorities, 1vhen justified-Article 136, interference by Supreme
Court, rule of practice.
The property under dispute was put up for sale at two different auctions by
the Ma·naging Officer, Amritsar.
The Rehabilitation authorities cancelled the
bid of the first auction purchaser Smt. Rup Kaur, holding that she had failed
to deposit the sale price in spite of issuing her a registered notice, and at the·
second auction the appellant's bid was accepted. In a petition filed under Art.
226, a Single Judge of the High Court found the findings of facts to be erro·
neous and the impugned order void, and granted a writ in favour of Smt. Rup
Kaur.
On appeal, the decision was upheld by a Division Bench of the High
Court.
Dismissing the appeal the Court,
HELD : ( 1) The High Court does not sit as a court of appeal to substitute
its own judgment for that of the authorities which are empowered to give their
decisions, but apart from jurisdictional errors, the High Court may
correct
errors apparent on the face of the record. An error to be apparent must be one
which does not take prolonged arguments to bring it to the surface. The Single·
Judge's conclusion that provisions of Rule 90 of the Displaced Persons Compensation and Rehabilitation Rules, 1955, had not been complied with, was not
erroneous. f123C-D. 126E-Fl
S. L. Hegde & Ors. v. M. B. Tirumale [1960] (1) SCR 890, applied
Hiralal Kher v. The Chief Settlement Co111111issie11er New Delhi [19611 P.L.R.
560, referred to.
(2) It is a settled rule of practice of this Court not to interfere with the·
exercise of discretionary powers of High Courts under Art. 226 of the Constitution merely because two views are possible upon the facts of a case.
For
qterference by this Court, the question must involve atleast a matter of public
or general importance or the injustice suffered by an individual due to an error
of Jaw should be so gross as to touch the c_onscience of this Court in which case
it would be deemed to be one of more than private importance. [123E-F]
CrvrL APPELLATE JURISDJCTION : Civil Appeal No. 333 of 1969.
(Appeal by Special Leave from the Order dated the 22-8-1968 of
the Punjab and Haryana High Court in LP.A. No. 427 of 1968).
B. Sen and H. K. Puri, for the appellant
S. K. Mehta, P. N. Puri and K. R.Nagaraja, for respondent No. 5.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered byBEG, J.-This appeal by special leave is directed against the judgement of a Division Bench of the High Court of Punjab & Haryana
dismissing in limine an appeal against a judgment and order of a
llEANT SINGH v. UNION OF INDIA (Beg, J.)
123
learned single Judge of that Court by which a Writ Petition made
A.
to the High Court had _been granted.
We have been taken through the very detailed judgment of the
learned single Judge where all the relevant facts are considered in
detail.
The questions which have been raised before us are: firstly,
whether the learned single Judge was justified in considering the
facts of the case and recording certain findings of fact without· having
B
even the advantage of the record of the proceedings of the Deputy
Chief Settlement Commissioner, and other officers who had given
certain other findings in favour of the appellant; secondly, whether
the learned single Judge's findings of fact are correct; and, thirdly,
whether any such apparent error was disclosed in the proceedings of
the authorities acting under the Refugees Rehabilitation and Settlement Act as to justify interference by the High Court. It was urged
C'
that a mistake apparent on the face of the record has to be one
which does not necessitate delving deep into facts on record to d-k;-
cover it after a re-examination of questions of fact which ought to
be left to the authorities empowered to give these findings.
It is true
that the High Court does not sit as a Court of appeal to substitute
its own judgment for that of the authorities which are empowered
to give their decisions in such cases.
Apart from
jurisdictional
D·
errors, the High Court may correct errors apparent on the face of
the record.
An error to be apparent must, according to a rough
test laid down by this Court in S. L. Hedge & Ors. v. · M. B. Tirumale(I), be one which does not take prolonged arguments to bring
it to the surface.
These propositions are quite well established.
It is, however, also a settled rule of practice of this Court not to
E.
interfere with the exercise of discretionary powers of High Courts
under Article 226 of the Constitution merely because two views are
possible upon the facts of a case.
Furthermore, in order to induce
this Court to interfere under Article 136 of the Constitution the
the question must involve at least a matter of public or general
importance or the injustice suffered by an individual due to an error
of law should be so gross as to touch the conscience of this Court in
F
which case it would be deemed to be one of more than private
importance.
The case before us is one of a competition between two auction
purchasers of the same property put up for sale at two different
auctions by the Managing Officer, Amritsar. The first was in favour
of the respondent Smt. Rup Kaur, held on 20th August, 1959, and
G
the second in favour of Beaut Singh, the appellant, held on 10th
May, 1961, on the assumption that the first auction could· be cancelled.
The broad material facts, apparent from the original official
record, which is now before us, are stated below.
At 1he a1;1ction sale on 20th August, 1959, held by the Managing
Officer, Amntsar, Rup Kaur's bid of Rs. 32,000/-, being the highest,
R
was accepted and this fact was communicated to her by a letter dated
(1) r-1960] (1) S. C.R. 890.
124
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[ 1977] 2 s.c.R.
A
11th September, 1959, sent through her son and general attorney
M. S. Grewal.
This letter was in the following terms :
B
·C
D
E
F
·G
H
"Dear Sir/Madam,
I am to inform you that your bid for Rs.
32,000/-
(Rupees thirty two thousands only) in respect of property
No. B-XII-18-S-14 (Portion I
and
Ill)
Hide
Market
Amritsar has been accepted as per terms and conditions of
the auction.
·
2. You have executed an indemnity bond in lieu of tht:
earnest money. due from you for adjustment against the
compensation admissible on your verified claim(s).
For
this purpose please furnish if you have not already done at
the time of auction the registration number of your compensation application, so as to reach this office within seven
days of the issue of this letter.
In case you intend to
associate any other claimants with you in the purchase of
the above mentioned property you should also submit affidavits of association duly completed by you and by each of
your associates, as per specimen attached to this office within the period specified above.
3. The balance of the purchase money, if any, found
due from you, after scrutiny of your compensation application and that of your associates will be communicated to
you in due course.
Yours faithfully,
Sd/-
District Rent & Managing Officer,
Amritsar".
The above mentioned letter showed that the contesting respondent being a displaced person had executed an indemnity bond and
had to furnish some information so that adjustment of the compensation due to her may be made against the amount which she had
to deposit.
What was that information?
On the margin of the
front page of this letter is a partially illegible writing running from
top to bottom of the printed full-scap sheet on the original record.
With some difficulty the following part only can be read :
"You
are required to submit the following documents regarding provisional
possession within seven days from the receipt of this . letter failing
which your case will be .... "
After "will be" nothing is found
written.
It is disputed between the parties whether this writing in
hand on the margin existed on the letter received by S•t. Rup
Kaur's attorney.
However, even looking at the copy on the original
record, the meaning is not at all intelligible. If it existed. it could
only confuse and not enlighten the recipient as to what was to be
done.
An order was then Pf\Ssed, on 8th March, 1961, which runs as
follows :
BEANT SINGH V. UNION OF INDIA (Beg, J.)
125
"ORDER,
A
Smt. Roop Kaur through her attorney Shri M. S. Grewal
the auction purchaser of unit No. B.XIII-18-S-14 (Portion
I and III) Hide Market Amritsar has failed to deposit the
balance sale price amounting to Rs. 28,000/- in spite of
issue of registered notice for 2-1-61. Her bid is, therefore,
cancelled and earnest money forfeited.
Settlement Officer
B
Jullundur may be requested to deduct Rs. 3200/- as earnest
money out of CA No. P/J/10110. The applicant may be
informed accordingly and property disposed of in the next
sale programme.
Announced.
Dated 8-3-61.
c
Sd/-
Distt. Rent & Managing Officer,
Amritsar".
This order does not state that parties were duly heard. It is disputed
whether the notice mentioned in it, alleged to have been sent to Smt.
Rup Kaur on 18-12-1960 asking her to appear on 2-1-1961, was
received by the contesting respondent.
Even if the learned Single
Judge's finding that it was not received at all by her were not correct,
the time fixt<d for her appearance was too short.
Furthermore, the
allegation that she had been called upon, presumably by the letter
dated 11-9-1959 to deposit Rs. 28,000/- was, on the face of it,
untrue.
Despite a report in her favour by the Regional Settlement
Commissioner, who investigated the facts ·and reported to the Chief
Settlement Commissioner, that she had not been properly served,
justice was denied to her by the Chief Settlement Commissioner
on 26-6-1963.
The learned single Judge had examined the facts and pointed out
other obvious illegalities at earlier stages showing that provisions of
Rules 90 and 92 and 105 of the Displaced Persons Compensation
& Rehabilitation Rules 1955 were not complied with in cancelling the
sale.
According to Rup Kaur, who filed some applicatfon on 9th
May, 1961, when she learnt what had happened, she had also filed
an appeal against the order of 8th March, 1961, and made a request
for extension of time for payment of the balance of the purchase
money, but, on 14th June, 1961, the following order was passed
by the Assistant Settlement Commissioner on her appeal :
"This is an appeal against the order of Distt. Rent &
Managing Officer Amritsar dated 8-3-61 whereby he canae!led the appellants bid and forfeited the earnest money on
account of his failure to deposit the balance price of property No. B. XTII-18-S-14 (Portion I & III) Hide Market
Amritsar purchased by him at the open auction within the
specified time.
For all intents and purposes this appeal is
for extension of time to deposit the
balance
purchase
price.
D
F
G
H
A
B
D
F
G
H
126
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
(1977] 2 S.C.R.
Extension of time is an administrative matter for which
no judicial action is called for.
Dismissed.
Inform the
appellant accordingly".
The learned Single Judge pointed out that the abovementioned
order of the Appellate authority was also void for contravening the
provisions of Rule 105 as interpreted by a Full Bench of the Hi£h
Court of Punjab in Hira Lal Kher v. The Chief Settlement Commissioner, New Delhi('!), so that it was the duty of the Settlement
Commissioner, to fix a date for hearing and to inform the appellant
of it was not discharged. Apparently, the appeal was decided without
informing the contesting respondent Smt. Rup Kaur when her appeal
would be heard.
Rule 105, which was thus contravened, provides :
"105. Provisions of Order XLI of the Code of Civil
procedure apply to appeals and revisions.-Except as otherwise expressly provided in the Act or in these rules, the
procedure laid down in order XLI of the Code of Civil
Procedure 1908 (Act V of 1908) shall, so far as may be
applicable, apply to the hearing and disposal of appeals
and revisions and the Act".
Furthermore, extension of time was not just an "administrative
matter". The question whether Rup Kaur had made out a case for
it or not should have been quasicjudicially considered and decided.
Indeed, if provisions of the Civil Procedure Code were app1ied to these
appeals and extension of time was only a relief sought, the discretion
to grant it or refuse it had to be judicially and judiciously exercised.
The order was made on an apparently wrong assumption.
The learned single Judge had restored the position to what it
was when the letter dated 11th September, 1959, was received by
M. S. Grewal, the son and general attorney of Rup Kaur, and had
directed the Managing Officer to proceed in accordance with Law.
After having heard Learned Counsel for both sides at some length,
we are not satisfied that any injustice has been done to the appellant
who will, no doubt, get back whatever money he may have deposited.
We think, that, in the circumstances of the case, it could not be said
that the learned single Judge's conclusion, that provisions of Rule
90 had not been complied with in dealing with the case of Rup Kaur,
who had suffered injustice, was erroneous.
The learned Judge had
stated his conclusion as follows :
"A mere reading of the above-quoted provision shows that
one of the conditions precedent entitling the Rehabilitation
Authorities to cancel the sale and to forfeit the initial deposit
is the service on the auction purchaser of a notice specified
in sub-rule (11), sub-rule (12) or sub-rule (13) of rule
90.
The petitioner admittedly complied with the requirement of the notice under sub-rule (12) of rule 90,(Annexure
"F") and no notice in terms of the requirements of subrule ( 13) of rule 90 was ever admittedly issued to or
(1) (1961) P.L.R. 560.
BEANT SINGH V. UNION OF INDIA (Beg, J.)
127
served on the petitioner. In these circumstances, the RehabiA
litation Authorities has no
jurisdiction
whatsoever
for
cancelling the sale in favour of the petitioner on account of
alleged non-payment of the balance of the purchase price
and for forfeiting the initial deposit made by her.
In this
view of the matter, the impugned orders cancelling the sale
in favour of the petitioner and forfeiting her initial deposit
are wholly without jurisdiction and cannot possibly be susB
tained. Errors of law in the orders of the Chief Settlement
Commissioner and the order Rehabilitation Authorities are
apparent on their face
inasmuch as the said orders have
been passed in absolute ignorance of the statutory provisions
referred to above".
We, therefore, see no reason to interfere with the view taken by c
the High Court. Consequently, we dismiss this appeal. But, in the
·circumstances of the case, the parties will bear their own costs.
M.R.
Appeal dismissed.