HARNAM SINGH Vs. D K PURI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) WHAT has been questioned in this petition under Art 226 of the Constitution of India is the right of the Settlement authorities under the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation), Act 1954 ( hereinafter referred to as the Act,) to transfer the compensation payable to a displaced person who has become an insolvent to the receiver of his estate?

(2.) HARMAN Singh petitioner is a displaced person and settled in Nabha after the partition. In partnership with some other persons the petitioner started ice factory but the business having failed the firm of which he was a partner was declared insolvent on 5th July, 1954 and the official Receiver Patiala, who is the first responded was appointed a Receiver of the estate on 7th May 1954. The petitioner had made a claim in respect of the property which he had left in Pakistan and it was verified for Rs. 41,912. The net compensation admissible on the petitioner computed at Rs. 9,551/ -. At first petitioner filed an application for adjustment of his claim with the Settlement Officer, Patiala, on 28th May 1954, Subsequently he made a similar claim at Ludhiana without disclosing that he had already made an application at Patiala. The first respondent had in the meantime applied for being submitted on his behalf that this is the reason which impelled the petitioner to file another claim Ludhiana. A statement of account was issued, to the petitioner on 15th August 1958, and when the Officer Receiver moved for payment of compensation due to the petition he was informed on 19th October 1962, by the Regional Settlement Commissioner, Jullundur that payment had already been made to the claimant. The Official Receiver there filed an appeal before the Chief Settlement Commissioner who set aside the statement of account which had formed the basis of the right of the petitioner to receive payment and directed that the amount should be available to the Receiver. This order of the Chief Settlement Commissioner passed on 23rd February 1963, was affirmed in revision by Shri N. P. Dube, Joint Secretary to the Government of India under S. 24 (4) read with S. 33 of the Act on 27th May, 1963. The petitioner feeling aggrieved by these orders has moved this Court for a writ of certiorari to direct compensation to him.

(3.) THE Settlement authorities were influence mainly by the consideration that the petitioner has practiced a fraud inasmuch as he failed to disclose that two separate applications has been filed and that two separate applications had been filed and registered in respect of the same claim. It has been pointed out by the Deputy Chief Settlement Commissioner that the statement of account had been furnished to the petitioner as a result of suppression of this material detail. In form of affidavits which has to be field with the claim under the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Rules, 1955, (Appendix I) it has to be mentioned that the claimant has not submitted an application in this form to any other authority. " The conclusion drawn by the Settlement authorities that the object of the petitioner in preferring a second claim at Ludhiana was to put off the Official Receiver at Patiala does not appear to the unreasonable. At Patiala m the Official Receiver has already applied for substitution in place of the petitioner. It is idle to contend that the petitioner could have made a disclose of the fact that a claim had also been preferred at Patiala. The Official Receiver was actually substituted in place of the Petitioner on 15th of December 1958. The order for adjustment of account having been, made on the second application made at Ludhiana was therefore cancelled by the Chief Settlement Commissioner. The assertion of the petitioner that he had informed the Ludhiana authorities about the first application at Patiala has not been borne out Commissioner. The findings of fact reached by the Chief Settlement Commissioner and the Central Government that the petitioner obtained the statement of account as a result of fraud and concealment of account as a result of fraud and concealment of fact cannot be agitated in these proceedings. It may be pointed out that in the preferred by the petitioner to the Central Government the finding of fact with regard to fraud only matter which was raised there was the legality of the Receiver's right tot be subsituted in place of the insolvent.