SATNAM SINGH Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SATNAM Singh petitioner has prayed for interference of this Court in writ proceedings to quash the order of the Central Government (Annexure E) under section 33 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954. The point for determination in this petition is whether it is open for the Central Government to revise its own order passed under the same provision in the absence of any new material?

(2.) PROPERTY No. B -X/671 in Ludhiana has been in occupation of the petitioner Satnam Singh and the third respondent Beant Singh. While the petitioner is a non -claimant the third respondent is a claimant. At first the entire property was transferred to the third respondent against his compensation by order of the Regional Settlement Commissioner pissed on 4th of August, 1956, it having been held that the property was not capable of division under Rule 30 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Rules. The property was valued at Rs. 7080/ -, the portions in occupation of the petitioner and the third respondent respectively being valued at Rs. 2751/ - and Rs. 4329/ -. In pursuance of this order, Beant Singh actually got the sale and conveyance deed issued to him. The petitioner, however, applied on 4th of December, 1956, to the Regional Settlement Commissioner for transfer to him of the portion which had been in his occupation on the ground that the property was divisible. On this a report was sent for and the Assistant Valuation Officer made the valuation of the two portions at Rs. 2751/ - and Rs. 4329/ -. An offer for transference of the portion in his possession was then made to the petitioner on 22nd of August, 1957 and the payment of 20% of the valued price was made by him on 30th of September 1957. It was only when Beant Singh had applied for a conveyance deed that the subsequent developments regarding the payment of 20% of Rs. 2751/ - by Satnam Singh came to light. The petitioner meantime had also filed an appeal to the Chief Settlement Commissioner who by his order of 7th of July, 1959 set aside the order of the Regional Settlement Commissioner transferring the property to Beant Singh as well as the subsequent order of the District Kent and Managing Officer transferring a portion of the property to Satnam Singh. The Chief Settlement Commissioner directed that the question of divisibility should be considered once again.

(3.) IT has been contended by Mr. Wasu that the Central Government having once exercised its residuary powers under section 33 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, it is not open to it to reconsider the matter without any fresh material having come to its notice. It may be stated at once that the petitioner and the third respondent have been in occupation of their respective portions of the property for many years and have been living separately. The question of divisibility has been considered by the various authorities and there can be no manner of doubt that the question is one on which two opinions could be and have been held on various occasions. There was no fresh material on which the impugned order of 7th of July, 1961 is based. The same facts and circumstances have been reappraised by the Joint Secretary in coming to the conclusion that the property is indivisible.