HIRALAL KHER Vs. CHIEF SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this reference we are concerned with the manner in which a revision before the Chief Settlement Commissioner under Section 24 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954, must be dealt with. The matter arose in the following manner : A house was allotted to the petitioner, Hira Lal, who is a displaced person. This house had to be evaluated under the provisions of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954. On 31-1-58 the Managing Officer assessed the value of the house at Rs. 4901. This value was contested by the petitioner on the ground that other houses in the neighbourhood had been assessed at lower figures. An appeal filed against the order of the Managing Officer was dismissed by the Settlement Commissioner on 7-11-1958. Then the petitioner filed a revision petition to the Chief Settlement Commissioner under Section 24 of the Act. The Chief Settlement Commissioner did not fix any date of hearing, nor did he give an oral hearing to the petitioner or his counsel. He made a brief order dismissing the petition which was communicated to the petitioner. The order is annexure 'D' to the petition and is in the following terms : "With reference to his revision petition dated 5-12-1958 Shri Hira Lal is hereby informed that the same has been rejected in limine".

(2.) The petitioner thereupon put in a petition for a writ in this Court urging that the order was wholly illegal and liable to be set aside, because it was not in conformity with the provisions of the Act and the rules framed thereunder. His contention was that the Chief Settlement Commissioner should have given an oral hearing to him as required by Order 41, Civil Procedure Code, which had been made applicable to revision petitions by the terms of rule 105 framed under the Act.

(3.) The question for our consideration, therefore, is what is the legal procedure for dealing with a revision petition filed under Section 24 of the Act? Can such a revision petition be dismissed without giving an oral hearing to the petitioner, or is the Chief Settlement Commissioner obliged to fit a date and hear the petitioner or his counsel before be can dismiss it?