DAMOMAL KAUSOMAL RAISINGHANI Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CIVIL Application No. 2904 of 1965 was only an application for sending for the record. Certified copies of the relevant record have been produced and shown to the petitioner. This application no more survives.

(2.) SPECIAL Civil Application NO. 588 of 1964 is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. By this petition the petitioner seeks to get quashed the order dated 31st October 1962 made by respondent No. 3 Mr. Ajwani, the Additional Settlement Commissioner with delegated powers of the Chief Settlement Commissioner. By this order the third respondent has reopened the verified claim of the petitioner and has in effect reduced it from Rs. 4, 710 to Rs. 500. The facts in brief are these. The petitioner originally belonged to Nawabshah, a place in Sind. That territory now is part of West Pakistan. The petitioner along with his brothers migrated to India leaving behind certain plots of land. According to the petitioner, he had a certain share in the immoveable property left by him and his brothers in urban area, that is, property within municipal limits. The petitioner as well as his brothers filed separate claims in respect of the said property before the claims officer and the claims officer by his order dated 13th January 1953 held that the property was in urban area. It was within the municipal limits of Nawabshah. The value of the property was Rs. 18,840 and the share of the petitioner in this property was to the extent of its one-fourth. On these findings the operative order made by him was :

(3.) THE contention of the petitioner, who argued his case before us, is that the third respondent had no jurisdiction to set aside the order of the Chief Claims Commissioner where under he had confirmed the value of the petitioner's claim at Rs. 4,710. The argument is that there is no power conferred by any statute on the third respondent to review the order of the Chief Claims Commissioner, the highest authority under Act XLIV of 1950. Before we deal with these contentions on merits it would be convenient to dispose of three preliminary objections raised by Mr. Vaidya, learned counsel for respondents.