HASHOMAL MULCHAND Vs. J.S. BAJAJ

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition seeks to challenge the orders made in revision under the Displaced Persons Claims Act and the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954. The petitioner is a displaced person and he filed claims under the Displaced Persons Claims Act, 1960. The claims were in respect of different properties. The first order verifying his claims was made by Mr. R. K. Bhojraj on July 15, 1662. The application before him concerned the agricultural property of the claimant at several places inter alia at Patoro No. 2 and Patoro No. 3 in Johi Taluka. His claim in respect of Patoro No. 1 in the same Taluka was verified by Mr. M Rs.Agarwal, Settlement Officer, on Aug. 3, 1954. In respect of Patoro No. 2 the petitioner claimed ten acres of agricultural land and that was accepted by the Officer on the basis of the sale-deed of 1937, which was marked Exh. J. It was stated to be un-surveyed land but was irrigated by stream. He equaled this claim to two standard acres and eight annas. In respect of Patoro No. 1 his claim related to two annas, eight pies share equivalent to twenty-two acres and twenty-six gunthas. He was supported in this claim by sale-deed and dhal receipts showing the survey number claimed by him. The Officer, therefore, accepted his ownership of these lands and calculated the equivalent standard acres into 8 acres, 4.51/80 annas. At Masudero he claimed eight acres and twenty gunthas of un-surveyed lands in respect of which the petitioner had produced sale-deed to show his title. This claim was accepted by the Officer. In respect of Hiro Khan he claimed three acres of un-surveyed land. On the same ground the Officer also accepted his claim. In respect of Masudero claim he allowed two standard acres and two annas while in respect of Hiro Khan he allowed twelve annas of standard acre.

(2.) In pursuance to the acceptance of these claims necessary statements of account were issued to him and adjustments were made in his account. On Aug. 20, 1962, the Settlement Officer reviewed the earlier verification re Patoro No. 2 suo motu and rejected the claim on the ground that the sale-deed of 1937 was an old document and could not be given any weight when the record from Pakistan does not support him. This order is at Exh. D-l. In respect of the second claim, regarding Patoro No. 1 Mr. L. K. Wason, Additional Settlement Commissioner, on the file having been forwarded to him reviewed the order suo motu proceeding ex parte and again relying on the official record from Pakistan rejected his claim, on July 23, 1962 This order is at Exh. D-2. Thereafter notice was issued to the petitioner intimating that further action would be taken for determining the excess amount paid to the petitioner and for its recovery. Again on April 4, 1964, Mr. K. L. Wason, Additional Settlement Officer, reviewed his two other claims in respect of Masudero and Hiro Khan which were accepted by Mr. Bhojraj and rejected these claims also on the ground that these lands were un-surveyed and because of the instructions that they are not to be verified. The petitioner challenges the orders made by the authorities rejecting his claims.

(3.) In this case it is not necessary to consider the technical objections raised on behalf of the petitioner. The first contention that has been pressed by Mr. Gursabani is that the Pakistan record cannot be relied upon by the Officers as evidence in the case because the record does not fulfill the conditions laid down by the Indian Evidence Act. He argues that the authority exercising the powers under sections 6 and 7 of the Displaced Persons Claims Act, 1950, is acting as a quasi-judicial authority and is, therefore, bound by all the rules of evidence and unless the evidence produced in a case satisfies the requirements of the Indian Evidence Act, it is not admissible. He relies in support upon the cases reported in Colonisation Officer Vs. C. S. Commr., A.I.R. 1957 P&H 186 and Gulab Singh Vs. Chief Settlement Commr., A.I.R. 1964 P&H 515 .