DAYAL KAUR Vs. FINANCIAL COMMISSIONER AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) C.M. No. 4953 of 2014

(2.) THE writ petition challenges the order passed by the Financial Commissioner exercising his powers under Section 33 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954 (for short, "the 1954 Act"). The impugned order confirmed the order already passed by the Deputy Commissioner -cum -Chief Settlement Commissioner whereby he dismissed the petition seeking for reopening an order earlier passed on 05.08.1971. The earlier order oh 05.08.1971 was in purported exercise of jurisdiction that vested in the Chief Settlement Commissioner under Section 24 of the 1954 Act. Under the said provision, the Chief Settlement Commissioner has a power to call for the records of his subordinate officers upto the level of Settlement Commissioner to examine the legality and propriety of an order already passed. The matter related to a claim by one Chanan Singh, whose representative is the present petitioner, that he was a displaced person from a place now in Pakistan and he was entitled to an allotment. An allotment was made in the year 1958 by the Managing Officer on 27.03.1958 for the offer price of Rs. 2,562.50. This allotment was challenged by a person by name Sohan Singh who complained that Chanan Singh was not a displaced person and that he had secured the order on a false representation about his status as such. The Managing Officer cancelled the allotment by an order dated 20.11.1961 which had gone in an appeal to the Additional Settlement Commissioner exercising the powers of Settlement Commissioner who disposed of the appeal filed by Chanan Singh and accepting his contention that he was a displaced person. It appears that a full price had been paid and a conveyance deed was also made on 10.11.1965. This order was again reopened by the Chief Settlement Commissioner under Section 24 that one Sat Pal gave a complaint that he was not a displaced person and that he was not eligible for transfer of the land. A fresh enquiry appears to have been carried out again and the authorized Chief Settlement Commissioner by his order dated 16.09.1966 held that he was not a displaced person and the certificate produced to that effect from the District Magistrate was not genuine. The impugned order passed on 05.08.1971 records the fact that the Chief Settlement Commissioner had called for a report from the District Magistrate about the status of the certificate issued by him and when he denied that he issued such certificate. The Chief Settlement Commissioner held that the allotment had been obtained by misrepresentation and fraud. The order passed in 1971 was sought to be reopened by revision filed in the year 1985 nearly 14 years later contending that the whole proceedings had gone behind his back and he had never been informed about the cancellation proceedings. The impugned order dated 12.08.1985 declined the plea on behalf of Chanan Singh's representative on two grounds: (i) that the District Magistrate from whom the certificate was got issued informed that no such certificate had been issued; (ii) the Settlement Commissioner cancelled the allotment only' after giving an opportunity to the petitioner to state his case and Chanan Singh, however, declined to avail to himself the opportunity by refusing to accept the summons.

(3.) THE petition is on an issue which challenges the factual considerations of what have been rendered. I thought for a while whether there will be any purpose served by allowing for a fresh opportunity to be given. Chanan Singh is now no more. 6 decades and more have passed since partition of India and it is not possible to ascertain whether Chanan Singh lived in any part of Pakistan from where he was displaced. Therefore the assessment of whether he was a displaced person or not is just not possible. However, Chanan Singh had obtained an allotment on the basis of a certificate from the Magistrate. We have the record of the Chief Settlement Commissioner, the highest authority to state that the District Magistrate had himself stated that he had not issued such certificate. I cannot again reopen the issue and go into an enquiry of whether the District Magistrate had really issued the certificate or whether he had made a proper verification to deny such a certificate had not been issued. Yet another contention that Chanan Singh had not been served with summons cannot also be seen, since an attempt by the court to secure the records was answered by the State that the records have been destroyed and they are not available. The' allotment proceedings of what have taken place in the year 1965 and the cancellation orders made after purported enquiry cannot become a matter of appraisal if it does not deal with the issues of law or questions of jurisdiction.