UNION OF INDIA Vs. TRIBHUWAN PRAKASH NARYYAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) TRIBHUWAN Parkash Nayar, respondent was a displaced person from West pakistan. According to his allegations he owned immovable property consisting of a 2 1/2 storied building containing forms. This property was situate in Lunda bazar, outside Delhi Gate in the city of Lahore. When the respondent was a minor a ticket for lottery was purchased in his name and luckily he won that lottery and with the money contained there from his maternal grandfather. Bawa Kanshi Ram purchased this property from Bawa Balram Dass Bhall. Instead of getting a sale-deed executed at first an agreement to sell was made on 9-4-1933 vide Exhibit C2, it was stated in this deed that the property was being purchased for the respondent for Rs. 3 lakhs. Later on in May 1934 the sale was effected by an oral agreement and at the same time Bawa Balram Dass executed a rent-deed in favour of the said Bawa Kanshi ram for Rs. 160/- per day, Bawa Kanshi Ram deed of transfer in favour of the respondent. The sons of Kanshi Ram actuallay executed a gift-deed on 28-3-1940, in favour of their sister the mother of the respondent and got the same registered on 16-7-1940 where by they gave this property to the done. The respondent had another brother Narain Nayar, but as this property in fact belonged to the respondent Exhibit C. 7 in his favour on 2-5-1944 by which she conveyed this property to the respondent. On the partition of the country the respondent assessing this property at Rs. 10 lakhs filed his claim under the Displaced Persons (Claims) Act 1950 (hereinafter referred to as the 1950 Act ). On 14-2-1953 the Claims Officer Jullundur after considering the documentary and the oral evidence that had been produced before him assessed the value of this property at Rs. 8 lakhs. The respondent s filed a revision petition against this order and Claims Commissioner Delhi accepted the same on 1-5-1953 and raised the value of the verified claim to Rs. 10 Lakhs. On the strength of this verified claim the respondent purchased two properties one in old Delhi and another in New Delhi in public auctions under the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954. When the Displaced Persons (Claims) Supplementary Act, 1954, (hereinafter referred to as the 1954 Act), came into force, a notice dated 8-11-1957 was issued to the respondent by Shri Mehar Singh Chadha, Settlement Commissioner requiring him to show cause why his verified claim under the 1950 Act should no be revised. In pursuance of this notice the matter was taken up suo motu by Mr. Chadha and on 20-1-1958 he reduced the certificate claim of the respondent from rs. 10 lakhs to Rs. 15,000/- Aggrieved by this order the respondent filed a writ petition in this Court praying that the order of Shri Chadha be quashed. The following three contentions were raised by the counsel for the respondent before the learned Single Judge:

(2.) THE first tow contentions were repelled by the leaned Single Judge. With regard to the third the finding given by the learned Judge was that the impugned order was erroneous on the face of it because while passing the same the relevant evidence had been wholly ignored and the decision was based on pure surmises. As a result the learned Single Judge accepted the writ petition and quashed the impugned order. The learned Judge further remarked at the end of the judgment that

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the appellants has strenuously argued that the question as to what is the valuation of a particular property is essentially one of the fact and the learned Single Judge was in error in reversing the finding of fact given by the chief Settlement. Commissioner on this point in writ proceedings. His submission was that the order of the Chief Settlement Commissioner regarding the valuation of the property in dispute was based on legal evidence and the learned Single judge was wrong in remarking that the same was based on surmises and conjectures. He further submitted that even if the learned Single Judge was of the view that it was an erroneous finding of fact he had no jurisdiction to interfere with the same under Art. 226 at the Constitution. Learned counsel for the respondent on the other hand contended that the special powers of revision under ht 1954 Act were given in Sec 5 of that Act and Rule 18 of the Displaced Persons (verification of Claims) Supplementary Rules, 1954 and they were as under: