MAHADEV DAYA RAM Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner and his brothers were displaced persons. They had a dispute about property left in Pakistan which they settled by an award on 159.49 and then got the same made rule of court. The judgment gave the names of their father and forefathers. Petitioner then got his claim verified under the D.P. (Claims) Act 1950 on 4.12.52 which was not disputed for a long time. The authorities desired to review it in 1964 U/S 5(1) (b)-of the D,P. (Claims) Supplementary Act, 1954. Petitioner was served with notice to show cause on 9.3.64 at Hyderabad asking him to appear in Delhi on 12.3.64. He did not appear and it seems that receipt indicating his service did not reach office and matter was adjourned to 24.364. On latter date ex-parte order was passed against the petitioner by the Additional Settlement Commissioner. The petitioner claiming that he came to know of the order on 6.6.64 filed an appeal after obtaining copy of the order. "Same was dismissed as barred by time. He then moved High Court by Writ. Para 6 onwards the judgment is:-

(2.) Assuming for the sake of argument that the notice had been served on the petitioner on 9th March, 1954. I find that the same is not at all satisfactory or valid. The notice had been issued for the hearing to take place on 12.3.64. This notice could hardly be sufficient for the petitioner to take steps to leave Hyderabad and appear in Delhi on the date of the hearing. Section 5 (2) of the Act provides that no order varying the decision of the Claims Officer or revising any verified claims which prajudicially affects any person shall be made without giving an opportunity of being heard. Rule 6 framed under the Act provides that at least 15 days before the date of hearing a claim, the Settlement Officer shall cause to be sent to the claimant a notice informing him about the date of hearing. Whether or not in view of rule 16 the provisions of rule 6 apply to notice U/S 5 (2), the present notice of 3 days can hardly be called sufficient opportunity to the petitioner. It is true that the ditional Settlement Commissioner did not pass the order on 12.3.64 but he passed it on 24.3.64 which is barely 15 days from the date of service, and the reason why he did not pass the order on 12.3.64 seems to be that the Acknowledgement due receipt had itself not been received in the office of the Settlement Comissioner. The respondents have also not filed, a copy of the notice that had been served on the petitioner, nor have they supplied its copy to the petitioner and it is surprising that they have taken the pleas that according to the instructions, the claim files are not open to inspection. In the absence of any material as to what the contents of the notice were and when it was served and when it was received it is impossible to hold that any proper notice has been served on the petitioner in accordance with law. The impugned order, therefore, is not sustainable on this ground alone.

(3.) There is another ground which has specifically not been taken by the petitioner, but which is apparent on the face of the record and has been allowed to be argued. The power of sun motu revision U/S 5 of the Act vests in the Chief Settlement Commissioner. The relevant provisions of the section read as follows .-