LABH SINGH ATMA SINGH Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner and respondent No. 4 are occupants of acquired evacuee property being House No. 324/20, Suman Bazar, Bhogal, New Delhi. The petitioner is a non-claimant, while respondent No. 4 was a claimant. The petitioner's application for the division of the property was rejected by Shri K. K. Mittal, Managing Officer, who ordered in June, 1959, as per annexure 'B' to the writ petition, that the Assistant Settlement Commissioner be asked to adjust the amount out of the claim of respondent No. 4 (by transferring fhe property to him). The appeal of the petitioner against the order of Shri K. K. Mittal was accepted by Shri I. D. Chaudhry, Assistant Settlement Commissioner, on 11-1-1960, as per annexure 'C' whereby the order of Shri Mittal was set aside and the case was remanded for the determination of the eligibility of the property for division by the Settlement Commissioner under- the then existing Rule 30 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Rules, 1955. The petitioner contends that his original application for the division of the property was revived, but the petitioner did not make any fresh application for fhe partition. The Regional Settlement Commissioner without issuing any notice to the petitioner ordered on 16-1-1962 for adjustment of part value of fhe property against compensation payable to respondent No. 4. The petitioner's appeal against the order dated 16-1-1962 was disposed of by Shri Parshotam Sarup, Deputy Chief Settlement Commissioner on 21-7-1962 as per annexure 'D' to the writ petition. He accepted the appeal, set aside the order dated 16-1-1962 and remanded the case with the direction that fhe question of divisibility and eligibility of the property qua parties may be determined after hearing them. The order after such hearing was passed by Shri A. L. Behl, Settlement Officer, with fhe powers of the Regional Settlement Commissioner, op 6-11-1962, as per annexure 'E' to the writ petition, holding that the property was not divisible, The revision of fhe petitioner to the Chief Settlement Commissioner under Sec. 24 (1) of the, Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954 (hereinafter called 'the Act'), was dismissed by Shri N. P. Dube, Chief Settlement Commissioner, on 20th May, 1963, as per annexure 'F' to the writ petition, firstly on the ground that no proceeding for the partition of the property wag pending on 31-12-1960 and, therefore, the Rule applicable to 'the case of the parties was the amended Rule 30, which did not provide for partition of the property; secondly, even it it was assumed that a partition proceeding was pending on 31-12-1960 and. the unamended Rule 30 was applicable, then on merits the Chief Settlement Commissioner held that the learned Counsel for the petitioner had not been able to convince him that there is a case on merits tor the partition of the house. There was concurrent finding of two officers holding that the property was indivisible and Shri Bahl's order explained why it is so in detail. The Chief Settlement Commissioner saw no reason to differ from their conclusion. He, therefore, held that the property could not be partitioned and ordered that it should be transferred to respondent No. 4.

(2.) The petitioner then applied to the Central Government under Section 33 of fhe Act for setting aside the order of the Chief Settlement Commissioner, The Central Government, however, dismissed-this application on 17-7-1963, as per annexure 'G' to the writ petition, on fhe ground that it saw no reason to interfere with the order of the Chief Settlement Commissioner.

(3.) In this writ petition, the orders of the Central Government at annexure 'G' of the Chief Settlement Commissioner at annexure 'F' and of the Settlement Commissioner with the powers of the Regional Settlement Commissioner at'annexure 'E', are challenged on the following grounds, viz.: