HARMILAP SEWAK SABHA Vs. CHIEF SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Harmilap Sewak Sabha, Ambala City, (Petitioner) approached the Rehabilitation Authorities for the transfer of evacuee plot No. 1734/617, Ward No. 4, Ambala City, measuring 1107 Square Yards by negotiations. The Chief Settlement Commissioner, New Delhi, obtained the report from the Regional Settlement Commissioner, Jullundur and approved the transfer of the plot in favour of the petitioner for Rs. 11,042/-. The approval of the Chief Settlement Commissioner was sent to the Regional Settlement Commissioner vide letter dated June 27, 1966 (P.3). The petitioner approached the Chief Settlement Commissioner once again vide letter dated July 27, 1966 (P.4) for the reduction of the price of the plot which was declined and the petitioner was informed accordingly by the Regional Settlement Commissioner, Jullundur, vide letter dated February 4, 1967 (P.5). The price was deposited and the conveyance deed dated October 9, 1968 (P.6) was issued in favour of the Secretary Harmilap Sewak Sabha, Prem Mandir, Ambala City. In 1974-75 Bhagwan Das respondent filed a petition before the Authorized Chief Settlement Commissioner, Haryana under Section 24 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation & Rehabilitation) Act, 1954 (hereinafter the 'Act') alleging that the plot had been wrongly transferred in the name of Harmilap Sewak Sabha, Ambala City and it should have been transferred in favour of Anant Prem Mandir who was in occupation of the same. The Authorized Chief Settlement Commissioner vide order dated February 3, 1975 (P.7) accepted the petition and ordered that the conveyance deed already issued be corrected by showing the name of the transferee as Anant Prem Mandir, Prem Marg, Ambala City. The petitioner has assailed the order P.7 in the present writ. The learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the Chief Settlement Commissioner in exercise of power under rule 87 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Rules, 1955 (hereinafter 'the Rules') rejected the transfer of the plot in dispute in favour of the petitioner on payment of Rs. 11,042/-. After the petitioner had deposited the price the Managing Officer executed the conveyance deed P.6 dated October 9, 1968 in favour of the petitioner. The Managing Officer implemented the order of the Chief Settlement Commissioner under Rule 87 of the Rules by issuing the conveyance deed P.6. The Authorised Chief Settlement Commissioner exercising the power under Section 24 of the Act had no jurisdiction to set aside or review the order passed by the Chief Settlement Commissioner under rule 87 of the Rules. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner must prevail. The Authorised Chief Settlement Commissioner exercising the power under Section 24 of the Act could look into the legality or propriety of an order passed by Settlement Officer, an Assistant Settlement Officer, an Assistant Settlement Commissioner, an Additional Settlement Commissioner, Managing Officer or a Managing Corporation, as provided in sub-section (1) thereof. The Authorised Chief Settlement Commissioner could not look into the legality or propriety of the order passed by the Chief Settlement Commissioner under rule 87 of the Rules. The impugned order of the Authorised Chief Settlement Commissioner P.7 whereby the order of the Chief Settlement Commissioner passed under rule 87 of the Rules was revised and reviewed, cannot be sustained being ultra vires. The learned counsel for the respondents has argued that the order passed by the Chief Settlement Commissioner allowing the transfer of the plot in dispute to the petitioner was void and the Authorised Chief Settlement Commissioner has rightly ordered the transfer in favour of Anant Prem Mandir. The contention is without merit. The question of the order of the Chief Settlement Commissioner passed under rule 87 of the Rules, regarding the transfer of the plot in dispute in favour of the petitioner cannot be treated as void. The Authorised Chief Settlement Commissioner delegated with the power under Section 24 of the Act has no jurisdiction to pass order under rule 87 of the Rules. The impugned order of the Authorised Chief Settlement Commissioner P.7 ordering the transfer of the plot in dispute in favour of Anant Prem Mandir cannot be sustained on this ground as well.

(2.) In the result the writ is allowed and the impugned order of the Authorised Chief Settlement Commissioner dated February 3, 1975 (P.7) is quashed. No order as to costs.