DULA SINGH Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Dula Singh has filed this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, calling in question the legality and propriety of the orders passed by Settlement Commissioner with delegated powers of Chief Settlement Commissioner, dated 12th July, 1961, and the Central Government, dated 24th November, 1961 (copies Annexures 'C' and 'D' to the petition, respectively).

(2.) The petitioner is a displaced person from West Pakistan. He held a verified claim in respect of which he was entitled to a sum of Rs. 2,400/- by way of compensation. In lieu of that compensation, house No. B-XII-803, situated at Ludhiana, was transferred to him in preference to Lakhmi Chand who was an occupant of a portion of the said house but the compensation amount due to him was Rs. 1,700/- and thus less then that of the petitioner. Applying Rule 30 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Rules, 1955, to the case, the petitioner was held to have better title to the transfer of the house by order dated March 10, 1959. The appeal of Lakhmi Chand was dismissed by the Assistant Settlement Commissioner on October 22, 1959, and against that order no further revision was filed with the result that the transfer order made in favour of the petitioner became final. Thereafter Darbara Singh respondent No. 3, father of the said Lakhmi Chand, filed a revision against the order of the Assistant Settlement Commissioner, dated October 22, 1959, but the same was dismissed in limine by the Chief Settlement Commissioner, on December 17, 1959. Darbara Singh then filed a review application which was allowed on July 12, 1961, and the house was directed to be transferred to him. The petitioner filed a revision before the Central Government under Section 33 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) which was dismissed without hearing. As earlier observed, it is in these circumstances that the present petition has been filed, calling in question the legality and propriety of the orders of the Chief Settlement Commissioner and the Central Government.

(3.) Written statement has been filed on behalf of respondent No. 3, in which the material allegations made in the petition have been controverted.