MANGAL SAIN Vs. CHIEF SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONERNEW DELHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution praying that the order of the Settlement Commissioner exercising the powers of the Chief Settlement Commissioner dated 10-12-1958, be quashed. In order to appreciate the matter it is necessary to set out in detail the facts giving rise to this petition.

(2.) House NO. 10, Block No. 5, situate in Ludhiana City was allotted to Mangal Sain, Aishi Lal and Kundan Lal. Thereafter it seems that notice was issued by the Department to Mangal Sian alone as to whether he would like to purchase the house in lieu of his compensation. On his willingness the value of the house was fixed at Rs. 3400/- and his claim to compensation amounting to Rs. 2090/5/- was adjusted against this price and he was called upon to pay Rs. 1310/- in cash and also the house-tax. Thereafter on 4-10-1956 it was ordered that the house be transferred to him. He paid the sum of Rs. 1310/- on 18-4-1957, and also the house-tax on 6-51957. After this order of transfer dated 4-10-1956 intimation was sent to Aishi Lal and Kundan Lal to pay rent of the premises in their possession to Mangal Sain with effect from 1-11-1954. This led to an application by both of these gentlemen to the District Rent and Managing Officer to the effect that the house was divisible and it should be divided into three portions and allotted to each one of the allottees. On an enquiry by the District Rent and Managing Officer, it was found by him that the house was not divisible and he accordingly rejected the application of Aishi Lal and Kundan Lal on 20-2-1958. Both these gentlemen went up in appeal to the Assistant Settlement Commissioner, Ludhiana, who himself inspected the spot and after hearing the parties on 11-9-1958, rejected the appeal holding that the house was not divisible. Against this decision, a revision was preferred to the Chief Settlement Commissioner and the same was heard by the Settlement Commissioner Mr. T. C. Gupta who on 10-12-1958, set aside the order of the Assistant Settlement Commissioner holding that the house was divisible inasmuch as it had three independent accesses. Mangal Sain moved the Central Government, but without success. This has led to the present petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution.

(3.) The contentions of Mr. Gandhi are that the rules whereby one house can be allotted to a number of people came into being on 21-5-1955, and therefore the transfer made in pursuance of an application made long before the rules came into force cannot be decided with reference to these rules, that in any case, the order of transfer was passed by the Regional Settlement Commissioner and that order was only appealable and not revisable under S. 24 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, and no appeal having been preferred against that order, it had become final and it cannot now be set at naught in a revision directed against the order of Assistant Settlement Commissioner dated 11-9-1958, and that it was held by the District Rent and Managing Officer as well as by the Assistant Settlement Commissioner that the house was indivisible and that even the Settlement Commissioner had to recognize that constructional changes had to be made in the house to make it divisible and that in view of the press-note where such constructional changes have to be made, it cannot be held that the hose is in fact divisible and therefore the Settlement Commissioner is in error in holding the house to be divisible.