UNION OF INDIA Vs. NAVIN BHARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) An application for revision preferred by Messrs. Navin Bharat (respondents herein) under section 24 (l) of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act.. 1954 hereomafter called the Act) to the Chief Settlement Commissioner was dismissed by him by the impugned order elated 30th March, 1964 on the sole ground that it was presented after the expiry of 30 days which was the period of limitation prescribed for "a petition for revision under the Act" by rule 104(1) of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Rules, 1955 (hereinafter called the Rules). A further revision against the order dated 30th March, 1964 was' dismissed by the Central Government on 1-7-1964. The writ petitions filed by the respondents against these orders was allowed and both these orders were quashed by the learned then Chief Justice of this Court who held that rule 104(1) purporting to prescribe a period of limitation of 30 days for filing a revision under section 24(1) of the Act was ultra vires the rule-making power conferred on the Government by section 40 thereof specially because section 24(1) itself empowered the Chief Settlement Commissioner to revise an order "at any time" and rule 104(1) could not, therefore, cut down the period of limitation for filing a revision application under section 24(1) to 30 days. The Union of India and the authorities acting under the Act have, therefore, appealed against the above decision of the learned former Chief Justice.

(2.) The question for decision before us therefore, is the same, namely : Whether the dismissal of a revision petition under section 24(1) of the Act as barred by the Limitation provided by rule 104(1) of the Rules was illegal ?

(3.) To answer this question, it would be useful to examine the scheme of those provisions of the Act' which provide for the three different remedies of appeal, review and revision against orders passed by the various officers acting under the Act including the periods of limitation, if any, for invoking them. The scheme appears to us to be as follows : A. Appeals : (i) First Appeal : Section 22 provides for appeals to the Settlement Commissioner against the orders of Settlement Officer or Managing Officer. (ii) Second Appeal: Section 23 provides for appeals to the Chief Settlement Commissioner against the orders of Settlement Commissioner or the Additional Settlement Commissioner or an Assistant Settlement Commissioner or an Assistant Settlement Commissioner or a managing corporation.